Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University: The Case of Cooperative Study Programs (Gabler Theses) 3658365250, 9783658365257

Citation preview

Gabler Theses

Benjamin Robert Schiller

Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University The Case of Cooperative Study Programs

Gabler Theses

In der Schriftenreihe “Gabler Theses” erscheinen ausgewählte, englischsprachige Doktorarbeiten, die an renommierten Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz entstanden sind. Die Arbeiten behandeln aktuelle Themen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften und vermitteln innovative Beiträge für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Informationen zum Einreichungsvorgang und eine Übersicht unserer Publikationsangebote finden Sie hier.

Weitere Bände in der Reihe https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16768

Benjamin Robert Schiller

Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University The Case of Cooperative Study Programs

Benjamin Robert Schiller Stuttgart, Germany Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Business and Economics TU Dortmund University Dortmund In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor Rerum Politicarum Submitted by Benjamin Robert Schiller Born on 23.06.1980 in Hof/Saale Reviewer 1. Prof. Dr. Liudvika Leišyt˙e 2. Prof. Dr. Uwe Wilkesmann Submission date: 22.07.2021 Disputation date: 14.10.2021

ISSN 2731-3220 ISSN 2731-3239 (electronic) Gabler Theses ISBN 978-3-658-36525-7 ISBN 978-3-658-36526-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Marija Kojic This Springer Gabler imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

To my parents Ute and Robert, and my siblings Sascha, Martina, and Markus.

Preface

Writing this dissertation was a hard and rocky road, and this holds particularly true as it was done while working a full-time job. During my research, I came across the following quote, which I feel is symbolic for the process of writing a dissertation: according to the US actor Robert Strauss, “[s]uccess is a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don’t quit when you’re tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.” Wrestling a gorilla is a metaphor for both the dissertation process itself and the associated handling of the research topic. It also stands for having found something out in the course of the research journey, for having presented and discussed the research topic within the academic community, for having written down things systematically in the form of the manuscript, and for having gone through the accompanying scientific feedback process with the supervisor. Quitting when the gorilla is tired illustrates that the research process never ends (the gorilla can perk up again), but that a research topic has been addressed within the narrow boundaries of one’s research question—and thus comes to an end for the researcher. Finally, success consists of having written a dissertation. In terms of my research context, I can thus say that my research interest on third mission governance in the case of CSPs has been explored and documented within the limits of this dissertation—so, my gorilla is tired—at least for a little while. For me, this dissertation represents a special milestone in my life: Born in 1980, I grew up in a large family in a small town in the northeast of the German state of Bavaria. My family belongs to the working-class and artisan milieu and has no academic background. The only person with an academic path and background is me.

vii

viii

Preface

My academic career started at the Stuttgart Media University, a university of applied sciences that trains specialists and managers for the media industry. The media crisis of the mid-2000s prevented me from joining the media industry as planned. Instead, it paved the way for entering the higher education sector, particularly towards positions in the field of higher education management, which awakened my interest in higher education topics. I came across the Society for Higher Education Research, and through its annual conferences, I became aware of the higher education sector as a research subject. The idea of completing my academic qualifications with a doctorate had been on my mind ever since my first degree. Therefore, it was obvious to look for a dissertation topic in this field. My academic education has always been characterized by application-oriented qualifications, as evidenced by my first degree as an industrial engineer, followed by a postgraduate course in specialized journalism (via distance learning) and by my Master of Business Administration completed alongside my job at a staterecognized private university, the Steinbeis University Berlin. Thus, my personal story also stands for the concept of lifelong learning and advancement through education. However, my application-oriented qualification initially proved to be an obstacle for my plans to do a doctorate in the German higher education system. The journey of finding supervision took about three years, during which I approached a significant number of department chairs in Germany who found my applicationoriented academic qualification path unhelpful for the scientific qualification in the shape of a doctorate and consequently did not commit to supervise my project. Of course, this was always done with factual justifications. However, it also became apparent that—indirectly—my profile was not perceived as academically attractive. This, then, was probably the practical version of the much-cited permeability of higher education in Germany since the Bologna reforms. During an annual meeting of German higher education researchers, I met Professor Dr. Uwe Wilkesmann during a break, and we got to talking about my plans to do a doctorate besides work. I also told him about my experiences in finding a supervisor. He gave me the advice to attempt my dissertation in English to end up with supervision. This brought Prof. Dr. Liudvika Leišyt˙e to my attention. This part of the journey started in Munich and Berlin. In spring 2016, I attended the annual meeting of higher education researchers in Germany, where I met my future PhD supervisor, Prof. Dr. Liudvika Leišyt˙e, in person. In a conversation during a break, I managed to interest her in my idea of doing a PhD on governance in CSPs. She found the topic I proposed and the associated data set very interesting and asked me to prepare an exposé on the topic, which enabled us to continue the discussion, conceive of a possible dissertation as well as supervision.

Preface

ix

By mid-summer 2016, the exposé had progressed to the point where we could discuss it in depth. Liudvika suggested that I could come to Berlin for her to meet me. So I booked a flight from Stuttgart (my place of residence) to Berlin. But the flight was canceled at short notice, and I could not initially appear on the scheduled date. Liudvika offered to postpone the appointment, but I kept at it and took the next possible train from Stuttgart to Berlin. Liudvika was able to reschedule for later that day. At the end of the day, we made it and could meet and exchange ideas about my exposé for a possible dissertation. Impressed by my will to keep at it, Liudvika agreed to supervise my dissertation. That was when the adventure of writing a dissertation while working really began. A long journey is now coming to a successful end for me. The present dissertation proves this. Numerous people accompanied and supported me on this journey. I want to thank all of the people who always motivated me to keep at it and bring the dissertation to a successful end. For this, I am very grateful. Of course, some people stood by me in a special way. I want to take this opportunity to express my special thanks to them. First and foremost, my thanks go to my supervisor, Liudvika, who accompanied this process in a demanding, motivating, and patient manner. Many thanks to Liudvika for believing in me and guiding me through this process. I think she found a good balance between challenging me and encouraging me during the mentoring process, and we were able to work together very well. Liudvika always gave me valuable impulses for both the theoretical conception and the empirical implementation of my dissertation. Without her, the work in its present form would not have come about. Besides, I had the opportunity to challenge myself to improve my English skills, as this was the working language and also is the language in which my dissertation is written. For me, this was yet another challenge to master, in addition to all the others. Also, I want to give special thanks to Prof. Dr. Uwe Wilkesmann, who gave me the idea to work on the dissertation and the topic in English. It has been a special honor for me that he took on the role of being my second supervisor. Thank you very much for that. In addition, my special thanks go out to my fellow doctoral student, Anna-Lena. Without her impulses and valuable feedback, I would certainly have gotten stuck at many points during the research process. I am especially pleased that, almost incidentally, we developed a friendship during all this. Further, a huge thank you goes out to my former dean at the BadenWuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart, who played a special role in the success of my dissertation. I want to thank Prof. Dr. Bernd Müllerschön, who was a ‘practical supervisor’ for me and supported my research by giving me the necessary freedom. For me, he was a reliable partner over the past five

x

Preface

years. Without him and his motivating words and impulses, the present dissertation would not have been possible. Thank you so much, Bernd. In addition, Rosi, his secretary of many years, has always stood by my side with words of encouragement and advice. Thank you, Rosi, for your mental support. I would also like to thank my former employer, the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart, who always accompanied the dissertation project with great interest and goodwill, and express my special gratitude to its rector, Prof. Dr. Joachim Weber. With interest and vision, these people have made higher education research on CSPs and the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University possible. In addition, I would like to thank my proofreader, Nina. She provided valuable impulses and tips for the linguistic improvement of my dissertation during the final reading of my dissertation. Moreover, I would like to thank my long-time friend and mentor, Oliver. He always encouraged me to dare to do a doctorate, and he always mentally motivated me during the phase of writing my dissertation. Our numerous reflective talks in the Allgaeu have given me strength and energy again and again—thank you, Oliver, for your mental support. Further, my longtime friends Rebecca and Przemek gave me mentally valuable support on the long way to write this dissertation. Thanks for the always motivating words and always open ears. I would also like to thank my good old friend of many years, Margot, who also supported me mentally in the process of writing this dissertation. Last but not least, I would like to thank my life partner Kai and my family for their understanding and patient guidance along the way. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents and siblings. Benjamin Robert Schiller

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the Dieter Schwarz Foundation for making the printing of this book possible.

xi

Abstract

This dissertation deals with the context of the changing governance of higher education. It focuses on the third mission of universities and draws on the example of cooperative study programs (CSPs). These type of study programs combine elements of higher education with elements of professional work and illustrate how a teaching-related third mission achieves a socioeconomic contribution through its underlying stakeholder interactions. In Germany, CSPs are a growing phenomenon and, at the same time, a niche in higher education with approximately 100,000 students. In higher education research, CSPs have been identified as challenging for higher education governance despite the simultaneous lack of empirical data. In this vein, the dissertation addresses the research question of how stakeholders influence the governance of the third mission in the case of CSPs in the context of a multi-campus university. Pragmatic and goal-oriented, the research question is examined using a specially developed theoretical model framed by Stakeholder Theory. A single-case study was conducted using the “prime” example of CSPs at a German university of applied sciences— the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University (DHBW). The core of the data consisted of 31 semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of core stakeholders from the case study university and pertinent documents on the case study university and CSPs. The analysis shows that four stakeholder groups in particular influence the governance of the CSPs, and thus the third mission. These include professors, representatives of for-profit and non-profit organizations (FPOs and NPOs), students, and representatives of the sphere of government and higher education policy. The stakeholder influence mainly occurs at the institutional level (meso level) and the program level (micro level) of the studied university. At the meso level, the

xiii

xiv

Abstract

dissertation identifies the interaction between the stakeholder groups of professors, FPOs and NPOs, and the state (Baden-Wuerttemberg) as significant for the governance of CSPs. The dissertation points out that each stakeholder group contributes to third mission governance: professors shape the academic-content profile of the study programs, representatives from the FPOs and NPOs shape the overall offer of study programs through their demand for and involvement in these, and the representatives of the state set the framework for a quasi-market of CSPs in Baden-Wuerttemberg to complement the existing higher education system. The implementation of CSPs takes place at the program level (micro level): in a leading role, the professors shape the delivery of the study programs in collaboration with representatives of the FPOs and NPOs. In this process, the voice of the students is included, which is reinforced by their role as employees in FPOs and NPOs. The study shows that stakeholders significantly shape the governance of the third mission in the case of CSPs. At the same time, the regional context plays a formative role. Furthermore, the study shows that by bundling CSPs under the umbrella of a university, a specific type of university of applied sciences can emerge that complements the university system. The dissertation will appeal to higher education scholars from sociology or management disciplines and practitioners looking for an overview and in-depth insight into the topic of third mission governance and CSPs.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 On Cooperative Study Programs, the Third Mission and Governance of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Literature Review and Context of this Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 On Teaching, Research, and the Third Mission . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Systematization and Discussion of Selected Definitions of Third Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 The Teaching Orientation of the Third Mission . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 The Third Mission of Universities and Beyond . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Concluding Remarks on the Third Mission of Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Outline of the Character and Key Characteristics of Current Higher Education in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Outline of Internal and External Stakeholders at Universities in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1 Internal Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2 External Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Higher Education Policy Reforms in Germany . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.1 Bologna Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.2 New Public Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Differentiation Process of Higher Education in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1 4 9

11 11 16 26 31 34 36 36 41 41 43 44 45 47 49 xv

xvi

Contents

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 On Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Brief Outline of the Development History of UAS . . . . . . 2.3.3 Function, Role, and Purpose of UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Landscape of UAS in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 The Link Between UAS and CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 On CSPs in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Brief Development History of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Important Definitions of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Landscape of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Concluding Remarks on CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Baden-Wuerttemberg as a Context for CSPs: Economy and the Link to Application-Oriented Higher Education . . . . . . . . 3 Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Problem of Third Mission’s Mission Overlap and Classification of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Selected Conceptualizations of Third Mission . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.1 The Triple Helix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.2 The Concept of the Regional Innovation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.3 The Entrepreneurial University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Governance of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 On Governance and Governance of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Exploring the Governance Term from a Political Science Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Exploring the Governance Term from a Business Administration Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Conceptualizing Governance of Higher Education . . . . . . 3.2.4.1 Clarks’ “Triangle of Coordination” . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.2 Governance Equalizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.3 Working Definition of Governance of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 54 56 59 61 65 68 68 71 75 78 84 85 89 90 90 91 93 97 102 105 106 106 107 109 111 111 112 114

Contents

xvii

3.2.4.4 3.2.4.5 3.2.4.6 3.2.4.7

Internal Self-Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Market-Oriented Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Stakeholder University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptualizing the Multi-Campus University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Stakeholder Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 On Stakeholders and Higher Education Governance . . . . 3.3.2 Exploring Stakeholder Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Problem of Stakeholder Identification and Possible Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.1 Stakeholder Salience Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.2 Viable System Model as Heuristic Concept for Stakeholder Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Critical Reflection on Stakeholder Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Derivation of a Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 116 117

4 Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Multi-Level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Operationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Single-Case Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Case Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135 135 136 141 141 144 147 159 160

5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Structures and Characteristics of the Case Study University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.1 Multi-campus University and its Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.2 Study Programs and their Characteristics . . . . . . 5.1.1.3 Study Portfolio of the Case Study University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.4 Committee System and its Characteristics . . . . .

165

118 119 120 120 121 123 124 127 128 129 130

166 166 166 172 173 176

xviii

Contents

5.1.2 Stakeholders of CSPs and their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.1 Professors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.2 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.3 FPO and NPO Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.4 Government and Policy Representatives . . . . . . . 5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Insights into the Process Organization at the Program Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1.1 Process Phase: Application and Enrolment . . . . 5.2.1.2 Process Phase: Course of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1.3 Process Phase: Completion of Studies . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1.4 Process Phase: Award of Academic Degree . . . . 5.2.2 Insights into the Process Organization at the Institutional Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.1 Process Phase: Implementation of a Course of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.2 Process Phase: Regular Operation of a Course of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.3 Process Phase: Re-accreditation of a Course of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.4 Process Phase: Termination of a Course of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Negotiation and Decision-Making on CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance in the Case of Cooperative Study Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Perceived Third Mission Governance Practices of Professors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1.1 Perception of Program Coordinators at the Program Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1.2 Perception of Program Coordinators at the Institutional Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1.3 Perception of Professors in University Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Perceived Practices of Students in Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.1 Perception of Students at the Program Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.2 Perception of Student Representatives at the Institutional Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 183 191 194 199 202 203 203 205 206 207 207 207 210 212 213 214 217 218 218 224 227 230 230 231

Contents

5.3.3 Perceived Practices of FPOs and NPOs in Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3.1 Perception of FPO and NPO Representatives at the Program Level . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3.2 Perception of FPO and NPO Representatives at the Institutional Level . . . . . . 5.3.4 Perceived Practices of Government and Policy Representatives’ Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4.1 Perception of Top-level Administration Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4.2 Perception of Higher Education Policy Representatives and Higher Education Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary of Stakeholders’ Roles in Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Salient Issues of Stakeholders Exerting Influence on Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Salient Issues Related to CSPs at the Micro Level . . . . . . 5.5.2 Salient Issues Related to CSPs at the Meso Level . . . . . . 5.5.3 Overall Comparison of Salient Issues with Regard to CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Organization of CSPs in the Context of a Multi-Campus University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Stakeholders Involved in the Governance of CSPs . . . . . . 6.1.3 Influence of Stakeholders on the Content of CSPs . . . . . . 6.1.4 Influence of Stakeholders on Third Mission Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Revisiting Research Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the Governance of the Third Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions . . . . . 7.1.1 How are CSPs Organized? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 What Stakeholders are Involved and What is their Role? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Stakeholder Influence the Content of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

232 233 234 236 236

237 239 243 243 244 246 247 247 247 255 277 281 286 293 293 294 295 297

xx

Contents

7.1.4 How do Stakeholders Influence the Governance of the Third Mission? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.5 Summary and Conclusion of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Contribution of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Empirical Contributions of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Practical Implications of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Reflection on Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Reflection on Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Further Research Avenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Closing Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300 302 303 304 305 307 307 310 313 314

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315

Abbreviations

CSP DHBW FPO/NPO HE HEI HER HES MCU TM UAS

Cooperative Study Program Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University For-Profit Organization/Non-Profit Organization Higher Education Higher Education Institution Higher Education Research Higher Education System Multi-campus university Third Mission University of Applied Sciences

xxi

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Fig. 3.10 Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Graphical representation of the concept of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . Visual representation of Kolb’s “experimental learning cycle” as a theoretical concept to understand CSPs . . . . . . . . . Subject areas of CSPs in initial training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overlap of universities’ three missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of CSPs in the Venn diagram of the “third mission” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three models of Triple Helix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Triple Helix III Model of University-Industry-Government relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Triple-Helix-Model of University-Industry-State relations applied to the current study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of RIS elements and relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The General Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark’s “triangle of coordination” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Governance Equalizer compares shifts in governance in four countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Universities constitute an ideal type between corporation and association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stakeholder typology with one, two, or three attributes . . . . . Theoretical model derived from the concepts and theories guides the course of the investigation . . . . . . . . . A multi-level analysis approach of our thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embedded (multiple units of analysis) single-case design . . . Units of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of interviewees ensures 360-degree view . . . . . . . . .

77 77 83 91 92 93 95 97 99 110 112 113 117 126 131 136 142 144 150

xxiii

xxiv

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5.7 5.8 6.1 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Organizational structure of DHBW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reporting relations of DHBW from the bottom-level to the top-level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depiction of DHBW’s campuses and their connection to Baden-Wuerttemberg’s economic regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic structure of DHBW and its constituting structural elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative structure of CSPs and the associated study place capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depiction of study programs and their structural characteristics incorporating the distinction “course of study” and “field of study” (left side) and “core modules” and “profile modules” (right side) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of the student life cycle of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of the life cycle of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Governance of third mission in the case of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of third mission governance in the case of CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree of stakeholders’ influence on CSP governance . . . . . .

167 168 169 170 171

173 204 208 257 283 285

List of Tables

Tab. 2.1 Tab. 2.2 Tab. Tab. Tab. Tab.

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Tab. 2.7 Tab. 2.8 Tab. 2.9 Tab. 2.10

Tab. 2.11 Tab. 2.12 Tab. 2.13 Tab. 3.1 Tab. 4.1 Tab. 4.2

Selected definitions of the third mission of universities . . . . . Strategic assignments and operational implementation to establish a teaching-oriented third mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of universities in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of student numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of first-year student numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistics of the top 3 federal states with the most universities and universities of applied sciences . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the number of students at universities of applied sciences among the top 3 federal states . . . . . . . . . Number of professors at universities of applied sciences . . . . Most important study programs of universities of applied sciences and distribution across academic disciplines . . . . . . . Development of CSPs in terms of the number of courses offered, the number of cooperating companies and the number of enrolled students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typology of CSPs according to the German Science Council (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of CSP formats for initial training . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of students in initial education by provider and organizational form 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of stakeholder categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure and main topics covered by the interview guide . . . Overview of the stakeholder group of professors interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 27 55 62 62 63 64 64 65

79 80 81 82 126 152 153

xxv

xxvi

Tab. 4.3 Tab. 4.4 Tab. 4.5

Tab. 5.1 Tab. 5.2 Tab. 5.3 Tab. 5.4 Tab. 5.5 Tab. 5.6 Tab. 5.7 Tab. 6.1 Tab. 6.2

List of Tables

Overview of the interviewed group of representatives of FPOs and NPOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the interviewed group of students . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the interviewed group of representatives from of the governmental and higher education policy sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the committee system and its functions . . . . . . . Summary of program coordinator’s roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of university management professor’s roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of student’s roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of for-profit and non-profit organization’s roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of government and policy representative’s roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of stakeholders’ roles and influence areas . . . . . . . . Governance equalizer applied to the case study university and its CSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influence of stakeholder groups on the content of CSPs . . . .

155 156

157 179 190 191 194 199 202 241 276 280

1

Introduction

Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, working together is success. – Henry Ford (1863–1947)

1.1

On Cooperative Study Programs, the Third Mission and Governance of Higher Education

This dissertation deals with the context of the changing governance of higher education. It focuses on the third mission of universities as it draws on the example of cooperative study programs. Thematically, this thesis is rooted in the tradition of studying study program innovation in higher education and governance, which the research area of higher education comprises. Due to its interdisciplinary nature (e.g., using the source disciplines of sociology, political science, and economic science; Schneijderberg et al., 2011, p. 7), we can deal with the university as a complex and particular organization (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 38). First of all, we would like to clarify how this thesis understood cooperative study programs (CSPs) as an example of the third mission. In general, CSPs combine elements of higher education with elements of the world of work (inspired by a vocational education and training system). These programs are organized to let students’ study in different localities, namely at a university campus and a company’s premises. Therefore, CSPs involve a complex web of stakeholders and teachers, resulting in a particular governance challenge (Krone, 2015b). In Germany, CSPs are prominent, which is corroborated by the increasing number of students attending CSPs (the number has grown to more than 100,000 students within a decade; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_1

1

2

1

Introduction

At an early stage, the Council of Science and Humanities (2013) noted that the field of CSPs showed definitional ambiguities and a lack of specific empirical data. Therefore, it was concluded that the field was—and still is—in need of research (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 11). This is, to some extent, due to the particularities of the German university system, which is organized on a federal basis. Educational sovereignty is the responsibility of the federal states, and therefore the field of CSPs is also very heterogeneous (Krone, 2015b; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). Furthermore, CSPs are primarily attributed to the sector of universities of applied sciences in Germany, which university statistics also confirm (BIBB, 2017; Hachmeister et al., 2016). Universities of applied sciences form a separate category of higher education institutions in Germany alongside universities (binary system) and ideally focus on practice-oriented teaching and applicationoriented research (Teichler, 2014). In higher education research, the field of universities of applied sciences remains, with a few exceptions, relatively understudied. Universities of applied sciences are assigned a special role, especially when it comes to the third mission, which includes activities in further education, knowledge transfer, social responsibility, and cooperation with local companies (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 12). Besides, CSPs are perceived as contributing to socio-economic development as they complement the higher education system as a binding element between the higher education sector and the vocational education sector (Graf, 2013a; Krone, 2015b). Dual programs in Baden-Wuerttemberg are considered a prime example of CSPs, as the concept originated here and became institutionalized under the roof of a tertiary educational institution with the status of a university of applied sciences (Brünner et al., 2016; Mill, 2015; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019). The form of a university of applied sciences in this state, the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University (DHBW), is a good example of the promotion of the third mission through dual study programs as it involves various stakeholders in the attempt to meet the needs of the regional economy (Minks et al., 2011; Schenkenhofer & Wilhelm, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a; Wolter, 2016). The third mission of higher education has been rediscovered in recent years by university managers and policymakers as the university’s contribution to society and the economy has increasingly been questioned by politics and society. The term ‘third mission’ serves as a “collective term for all society-related university activities” (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 5). In other words, it describes specific activities that involve the exchange relations between universities and their nonacademic environments (Henke et al., 2015, p. 40). Therefore, the message behind the third mission is that universities play a significant role in the social and

1.1 On Cooperative Study Programs, the Third Mission …

3

economic ecosystem, linking the academic, industrial, public, private, and civil society sectors (Ward & Hazelkorn, 2012, p. 5). Scholars underscore the need to understand better what reform efforts governments are undertaking to promote the third mission and how governance structures, curricular structures, or research structures at the university level have been aligned with it (Benneworth & Zomer, 2011, p. 98). Carrying out third mission activities and engaging in interactions with industrial and regional partners challenge the underlying governance system of universities (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). Engaging in third mission activities usually means going beyond traditional teaching and research (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012). In this context, the professional autonomy of university members seems to be transformed as external forces, e.g., emanating from government or industry, contribute to the university’s agenda. Therefore, the third mission implies a changing institutional environment with consequences for higher education governance as it evolves towards a “multi-level” and “multi-actor” endeavor (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012, pp. 123–124). So far, one can conclude that the governance of the third mission of universities is multi-layered and can be discovered on different levels. Furthermore, it can be summarized that the third mission has changed the governance of higher education by incorporating stakeholders and that the third mission connects the core missions of a university, namely teaching and research, to an external service within the socio-economic system. In this context, CSPs represent a specific form of third mission activities and exemplify the utilization of higher education teaching by providing qualified graduates for the labor market. Hence, CSPs have been governed in a complex way which invites further exploration. For this reason, this thesis explores the governing of CSPs as an example of the third mission in the case of a university of applied sciences. It seeks to understand the role stakeholders play in this. Further, this thesis aims to supplement the literature on the governance of teaching-related third mission activities in the context of universities of applied sciences. To address the research gap in the literature, we applied a multi-meso- and micro-level perspective and focused on the governance of CSPs. In our thesis, we used the DHBW as an example of the third mission in teaching in the sector of universities of applied sciences.

4

1.2

1

Introduction

Problem Statement and Research Questions

As mentioned above, CSPs stand for a teaching-related third mission. Governing teaching with external stakeholders challenges the underlying higher education governance as it implies a different understanding of roles (in relation to the stakeholders involved), structures, and processes in university governance. This includes, for example, the question of curriculum planning, which is usually one of the core areas of professorial competence. Thus, one may conclude that third mission activities might result in an altered role of professors and their tasks, leading to the question of what such a changed profile might look like. So far, little is known in the literature on the third mission or in the literature of higher education research about how governance works in the context of a teaching-related third mission. Especially in Germany, the third mission occupies primarily the area of technology transfer and not the area of qualification (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016). With respect to research on universities of applied sciences, the third mission is primarily ascribed to the area of technology transfer (Duong et al., 2016a; Roessler et al., 2015). Even within the area of CSPs, the research focus so far has been on issues such as the bridging function of study programs or the transfer of the study model abroad (Graf, 2013a; Krone, 2015b; Zhang, 2016). Accordingly, this thesis investigated how stakeholder groups influence the governance of CSPs. The case of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and its DHBW was used to explore the problem in more detail. The DHBW is considered an established university of applied sciences that has been offering CSPs for many years, with a high proportion of students participating in those programs compared to the rest of Germany. In addition, the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has a highly differentiated university system and a high density of companies characterized by the presence of both large industries (for example, automotive and mechanical engineering) and strong small and mediumsized companies (for example, suppliers to the automotive industry or IT, and tourism). The chosen case offered the opportunity to examine the phenomenon of CSPs in the light of the third mission and higher education governance to gain deep insights, both at a meso and micro level. Consequently, the central concern of our study was to gain an understanding of how third mission governance works in the case of CSPs, which led to the following research question:

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions

5

How do stakeholders influence the governance of the third mission at the multicampus university in the case of CSPs? The following three subquestions address the problem statement: 1. How are CSPs organized in the context of a multi-campus university? 2. What stakeholders are involved in the governance of CSPs, and what is their role? 3. How do these stakeholders influence the content of CSPs? The research problem outlined above was approximated by drawing on stakeholder theory and conceptual approaches explaining the third mission, especially that of Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b), the concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS; Freeman, 1987, 2009; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1992) and the Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a) as well as university governance. Stakeholder theory proved to be a beneficial approach in higher education research (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010, p. 569), indicating that “any group or individual” can influence the goals of an organization (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Furthermore, it helped reveal the processes and patterns of stakeholder actions caused by CSPs (as an example of the teaching-related third mission) and gather information about the nature of the cooperative relations between internal and external stakeholders. In the area of third mission conceptualizations, the Triple Helix concept (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b) and the concept of the Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a) were used to understand stakeholder interactions in governing teaching with internal (e.g., professors) external stakeholders (e.g., industry representatives). At its core, the Triple Helix sees university, state, and industry as representatives of three institutionally different sectors that stand in an exchange relationship to stimulate socio-economic development. The Triple Helix model helped explore a university system in its social contexts (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000a, p. 109) and focus on the traditional function of higher education. It offered an analytical perspective on the changing production of knowledge, triggered, for example, by the third mission. This results in a transdisciplinary system which can lead to a hybrid organizational form to promote innovation (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8). Therefore, this hybrid organizational form can be an entrepreneurial university that promotes Triple Helix connections (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 28). In this way, the entrepreneurial university contributes to national economic development. The term “entrepreneurial” refers to the fact that universities have been transforming themselves into organizations

6

1

Introduction

providing relevant offers to the market through an entrepreneurial attitude (Clark, 1998a, pp. 3–4). This also applied, for example, to the development and provision of CSPs. The third mission takes place in a regional reality, which is why the concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS; Freeman, 1987, 2009; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1992) was used to unravel the specific regional context and contribution of the CSPs. This thesis focuses on the university as an organization (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 38) and one of its main functions: its teaching-related third mission and its governance system. In essence, governance is a system of coordination and entails participation on the one hand and hierarchical interaction on the other (Mayntz, 2008). For this thesis, we thus referred to a definition of governance of higher education as provided by the OECD (2008), which mapped out a system of coordination including structures, processes and relationships, their underlying interactions, and institutional characteristics (OECD, 2008, p. 68). These dimensions of governance helped to explore university governance and the constellation of actors in this thesis. In addition, we were leaning on the Governance Equalizer heuristic (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007, pp. 138–139) and its five dimensions: state regulation, academic self-governance, stakeholder guidance, managerial self-governance, and competition. The concept was initially developed to present the changing coordination of higher education systems under the new public management reforms and understand the external governance dynamics at the macro and meso levels and is the heuristic to help understand the system of coordination focusing on the role of the state and markets in higher education. The concept primarily focuses on the macro level. However, we argue that a macro-level constellation (including, e.g., regulations and guidelines) is always reflected in a response at the meso and micro level. Therefore, the Governance Equalizer heuristic allowed us to better understand, in particular, the CSPs as a teaching-related third mission from a different perspective. This thesis focuses on accessing, understanding, and interpreting the underlying network of interactions and relationships between internal and external stakeholders in CSPs at macro, meso, and micro levels. Therefore, it addressed three levels: the macro level at which policies for CSPs have been developed; the organizational level (meso level) at which university strategy has been shaped; and the program level (micro level) at which CSPs have been carried out. Each level had its own dynamics and characteristics, and the levels were interwoven and influenced each other. To sum up, the goal of this thesis was to understand the multi-level governance dynamics of the teaching-related third mission in the case of CSPs.

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions

7

Subsequently, a single-case study using DHBW as an empirical case was an appropriate research strategy to sharpen existing conceptualizations and theories and fill identified gaps (Siggelkow, 2007, p. 21). Furthermore, the research strategy selected in this thesis was considered appropriate because, to date, little is known about the governance of CSPs, and a comparatively small number of cases concerning CSPs existed (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 59). Expectations of the study Based on the theories and concepts presented to capture the roles of key stakeholders influencing the development of CSPs in the context of third mission governance at a university, we propose the following expectations. The first subquestion to the research question deals with the organization of CSPs in the multi-campus university context and shapes the first research expectation: 1. Third mission governance entails two aspects regarding the organization of CSPs as an example of a teaching-oriented third mission. We expect that partner companies from the industry sector are involved in implementing CSPs. Their participation results in two places of learning, the campus of the case study university and the business premises of the partner company. Then, we expect that the CSPs are carried out in a specific regional context which might be reflected in a variety of regionally dispersed campuses close to the business premises of the partner companies. Concerning this expectation, the third mission governance concepts—Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b) and Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a) in conjunction—might help us understand the specific structures of the CSPs and their involvement of external stakeholders. Third mission governance entails the fact that location matters. Consequently, the concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS; Freeman, 1987, 2009; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1992) might contribute to understanding the organization of the CSPs in their specific regional realities. Both aspects of our first research expectation—drawing a picture of the involvement of external stakeholders and the strong regional connection—might influence how CSPs are governed. The second subquestion to the research question deals with the stakeholders involved in CSPs and their roles concerning third mission governance and forms the point of departure for our second research expectation:

8

1

Introduction

2. We assume that the governance of the CSPs engages external stakeholders with various levels of influence. Thus, we expect that the external stakeholders (industry) are structurally integrated into the case study university to influence the strategic design of the offer of CSPs (meso level). We substantiate this expectation through stakeholder theory which entails that “any group or individual” might have an impact on the goals of an organization (Freeman, 1984). Stakeholder theory helps us better understand stakeholder powers and their spheres of influence with respect to CSPs. The CSPs serve to qualify young people for the labor market at an academic level. On the one hand, we assume that the role of professors is very significant in terms of the academic quality of study programs. On the other hand, the external stakeholder group of partner companies (industry) requires well-trained junior staff, which leads to a demand for qualification offers. Consequently, this external stakeholder group determines the areas in which young people are trained as junior staff, depending on the respective need for skilled workers within an industry or sector. Therefore, we assume that the role of the partner companies as external stakeholders could have a high impact on the areas in which training is provided through CSPs. As a result, this external stakeholder group can be said to have a strong influence on the strategic direction of the portfolio of CSPs offered at the case study university. The third subquestion to the research question refers to the influence of stakeholders on the content of CSPs and leads to our third research expectation: 3. Carrying out CSPs implies cooperation between the university and industry (external stakeholders). We expect that outside organizations that are partners in CSPs (micro level) influence the curriculum differently than would be the case at a regular university or university of applied sciences, for example. We substantiate this expectation again through stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). Consequently, stakeholder theory helps us better understand stakeholder powers and their spheres of influence with respect to CSPs. In our third research expectation, we refer to the program level (micro level) of CSPs and assume that when external stakeholders are involved in the study program implementation, they influence the shape of the curriculum. In particular, since the business’ premises of the cooperating partner company are a learning site in addition to the university learning site. Hence, a high degree of influence on the practical part of the curriculum—and thus the content—of CSPs might be attributed to the external stakeholders from the partner companies (industry).

1.3 Structure of the Thesis

1.3

9

Structure of the Thesis

This thesis consists of seven chapters, including the introductory Chapter 1. Chapter 2 features a literature review on the concept of the third mission to substantiate our understanding of the subject (section 2.1) as well as an outline of the German higher education system (section 2.2). Both formed the context for this thesis. Further, a particular focus has been put on the sector of universities of applied sciences (section 2.3) and the subsector of CSPs (section 2.4) as well as on Baden-Wuerttemberg and the link between its economy and its application-oriented higher education system (section 2.5). Chapter 3 presents and discusses the conceptual and theoretical framework of this thesis necessary to understand teaching-related third mission governance. The chapter entails four sections: first, it classifies the type of third mission studied in this thesis and selected conceptualizations of the third mission guiding our research (section 3.1); second, it conceptualizes HE governance, including a working definition of HE governance for the purpose of this thesis (section 3.2); third, it presents and discusses stakeholder theory and supporting concepts used in the present research (section 3.3), and fourth, it presents and develops a theoretical model derived from the combination of the concepts and theories introduced before as the analytical framework for our research (section 3.4). Chapter 4 deals with the methodological foundation of our thesis. First, it describes the multi-level analysis and the operationalization of the applied concepts. Furthermore, the chapter deals with the research design of the case study used in this thesis which entails issues of case design and selection as well as data collection and analysis. Finally, the chapter discusses the limitations and the role of the author of this thesis. Chapter 5 launches the empirical application of the theoretical and methodological premises discussed in earlier chapters. It describes and interprets our case of CSPs in the light of the third mission and higher education governance. The first section presents essential structures and actors (section 5.1). The second section is devoted to the processes identified (section 5.2). The third section is concerned with the roles and influences of the individual groups of stakeholders and elaborates on salient topics of a teaching-related third mission (section 5.3). The fourth section presents a summary of the roles and influences (section 5.4). Finally, in the fifth section, a final comparison is made between the roles and influences of each stakeholder group studied in this thesis (section 5.5).

10

1

Introduction

Chapter 6 describes, discusses, and interprets the findings of our empirical study in the light of concepts and theories used. The presentation in this section is based on four theoretical-conceptual dimensions. These derive from the theoretical model and structure the discussion and interpretation of the results. The concluding Chapter 7 answers the research questions and presents the outcomes of the study. It provides a critical reflection in terms of theory and methodology and proposes future research avenues. The closing section is dedicated to a practical implication of this thesis. In addition, selected aspects that could not be pursued further as they are outside the focus of the thesis are discussed.

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

The literature review in this chapter substantiated our understanding of the subject of ‘third mission’ and formed the contextual framework for the research compiled in this dissertation. Further, it contextualized the German HE system with a focus on universities of applied sciences, CSPs, and the application-oriented HE system of Baden-Wuerttemberg. This contextualization is needed to show that we are looking at a very particular form of HE specific to Germany.

2.1

Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

This section presents and discusses the subject of the third mission of universities, including, first, an introduction to the term ‘third mission’; second, a systematization and discussion of definitions of the term ‘third mission’ taken from the literature and the derivation of a working definition for this thesis; third, a consideration of the third mission and teaching orientation highlighting the core interest of this thesis; fourth, a discussion of the concept ‘third mission’ and beyond and fifth, concluding remarks on the topic of the third mission. The term “beyond” addresses the question of what other tasks the institution of higher education might face after the third mission for universities.

2.1.1

On Teaching, Research, and the Third Mission

The third mission of universities has been characterized as an exchange relationship between the university and society (see, for example, Roessler et al., 2015, p. 5). Logically, a first and second mission must precede the third mission of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_2

11

12

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

a university. The literature defines teaching (first mission) and research (second mission) as traditional core tasks of universities (Martin & Etzkowitz, 2000; Wissenschaftsrat, 2017). The university organizes and carries out these missions at the meso level (referring to the institution as a whole) and the professors (individual) at the micro level (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2012, p. 363). Before discussing the third mission, we outline the contemporary understanding of universities’ teaching and research. This is necessary to show that the first and second mission inform the third mission and build the basis for it. Teaching According to the Cambridge Dictionary (2020), the term ‘teaching’ comprises the “process of guidance or instruction of students” and “the job of a professor” (with a teaching obligation at their university). Turner et al. (2011) define teaching as the right and duty of a professor to impart knowledge. It should be implemented based on a curriculum and interrelate with research (Turner et al., 2011, p. 131). Teaching at universities is curriculum-oriented and carried out through a course of study that entails competence development and should occur based on pre-defined goals. Altogether this is met through a consistent, coordinated study program usually involving individual modules. The modules of a study program also record and specify event formats (e.g., a lecture or seminar) and examination forms (e.g., exam or oral examination). The first universities were established as teaching-only institutions. In their early days, universities were centers for training for the core professions of their time (e.g., priests, judges, physicians). Until today, universities are the places where, for example, engineers, managers, social workers, and other professions receive training (Altbach, 2008, p. 6). Hence, one can say that the main purpose of this type of institution has been—and continues to be—the dissemination of knowledge (Martin & Etzkowitz, 2000, p. 8) or, in other words, knowledge transfer. Teaching can be determined as the ‘first mission’ of a university and remains at the center of the institution’s operations. Even though the educational role of universities (via teaching) has become universal and complex, they combine both application orientation and education in fundamental academic disciplines (Altbach, 2008, p. 6). In addition, the German Science Council (2017) understands curriculum design as a permanent scientific task of its own; consequently, this can also be considered a sovereign task for academics (Wissenschaftsrat, 2017, p. 18). Consequently, teaching is significant for the job profile of a professor, and it is not highly valued in the practice of higher education. Research, however, is of great importance for a professor’s career (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012; Wilkesmann, 2016).

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

13

Research The term ‘research’ is understood as “a close and careful study to find out (new) facts or information” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Further, Turner et al. (2011) define research as hypothesis-driven and method-based knowledge gain. They distinguish between basic research and applied research. Basic research serves the pure advancement of knowledge. Applied research seeks findings based on concrete, practical problems (Turner et al., 2011, p. 96). The establishment of the research mission of universities goes back to the times of Humboldt. Due to the success of industrialization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, research appeared as the “second mission” of the university (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Codling & Meek, 2006; Martin & Etzkowitz, 2000). From then on, the notion of the traditional university evolved with teaching and research as the university’s core missions (Martin & Etzkowitz, 2000, p. 13). As a “prototype model” of a contemporary university, the university following the “Humboldtian model” (von Humboldt, 2019) emerged and spread around different countries. The central notion of the “Humboldtian principle” encompasses both freedom of teaching and research and unity of teaching and research. Even today, this idea has lost nothing of its appeal and shapes the self-image of academic professionals. Since Humboldt, universities are supposed to fulfill the purpose of contributing to economic development. This includes contributing to knowledge and technologybased industries through research and to the development of students’ skills via teaching (Altbach, 2008, p. 7). The research mission of universities is the focus of interest and of great importance to professors, since their academic career and reputation depend to a large extent on their performance in this area (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012; Wilkesmann, 2016). One could summarize this with the motto “only research matters,” as it is recorded in the research literature on higher education. In the late sixties of the twentieth century, all OCED countries discerned the growing need for higher education. Overarching organizations such as the OECD and the European Union (EU) were identified as drivers and sources for higher education policy (Lassnigg & Auer, 2012, p. 29). The national university systems have been transformed from elite systems into mass systems since then. The transformation from industrialized societies (and economies) into knowledge-based societies (and economies) and the introduction of the concept of lifelong learning in higher education systems triggered and accompanied this development. It connects to issues of numerous reform processes (e.g., the Bologna reform, New Public Management) within national higher education systems which ascribed a different role to universities compared to that of the past: within knowledge-based societies, universities are regarded as “places of knowledge production” providing benefits for society (and economy) via their research and teaching missions. In other words, higher

14

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

education is driven by the needs of the knowledge society (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 8). This statement provides an anchor point for the idea of a “third mission” as both an additional and a complementary mission (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000a; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Also, the notion of a “knowledge-based society” and the concept of “lifelong learning” deliver a conceptual foundation as well as a kind of ideological basis to explore the term “third mission.” Third mission The preceding brief exploration of the concept of research provided the breeding ground for the idea of a third mission of universities (Laredo, 2007a, p. 442). Yet, the concept of the third mission lacks a uniform definition that adequately captures and describes exactly what activities besides teaching and research are meant (Berghaeuser & Hoelscher, 2020; Henke, 2019; Roessler, 2016). It has been argued by higher education scholars that there are further variations of the term; however, it can be assumed that “third mission” has established itself as a common variant (Henke, 2019, p. 71). The following terms also appeared in the literature: “universityindustry-government relations” (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017), “third stream activities” (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002b) and “external academic engagement” or “external engagement of universities” (Perkmann et al., 2013). For this thesis, we use the term ‘third mission,’ which has already been identified as the most common term. For further in-depth reading, we recommend the literature reviews on the notion of the third mission that deal with many of the conceptual variants, their history, and empirical examples (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Benneworth, 2009). The third mission of universities is discussed in the context of the intertwined concepts of the knowledge-based society and lifelong learning1 . Within the so-called “knowledge-based society,” universities assume a vital role in economic growth and societal development (OECD, 2008, p. 13). In this vision of a society, universities become the central places of “knowledge production” and are significant providers

1

Within the current higher education systems of all OECD countries the concept of lifelong learning has been promoted by national and regional policies. The idea evolved from OECD research papers in the 1970s (Hösel, 2010, p. 98). At that time, it became apparent that one single qualification would not last a whole working life. Based on that notion, the concept of lifelong learning appeared and advanced to the subject of educational system reforms at international and national levels. This formed an important basis for the transformation of the higher education systems described above. Furthermore, this nourished the idea that universities should play an important role in putting the concept of lifelong learning into practice. Closely linked to this are the concepts of the knowledge-based society and employability.

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

15

of education and research referring to “lifelong learning.” The Bologna reform process encouraged this development further. It naturally included collaborations and partnerships with external stakeholders. This, in turn, resulted in the perception that universities loosened their traditional boundaries to “serve” society and economy through their traditional missions of teaching and research. This idea is called the third mission of the university. Here, the role of the provider of education is reflected in the fact that a bachelor’s degree serves as a professional qualification with “employability as central feature” (Laredo, 2007a, 2007b). Inside academia, this is, for example, used for the profile development of study courses with highly recognized employability, which has dominated the policy debate (Teichler, 2014). As such, massification, collaboration, partnership, and a changing social composition where knowledge creation and transfer are central characterize the “contemporary university” or the so-called “university of the 21st century” (OECD, 2001). “Employability” has become a significant feature of bachelor studies, and this reflects the development depicted above. Consequently, the first academic qualification has become a kind of initial educational pathway for the labor market. Joint governance arrangements of higher education in all OECD countries facilitate this development by including instruments of performance measurement, goal setting, accountability, competition, and autonomy (Austin & Jones, 2016; Jürgen Enders et al., 2011; Krücken & Meier, 2006; Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012; OECD, 2003). On the one hand, this neo-liberal approach changes the nature and fundamental mission of universities. But, on the other hand, universities and their resources have been harnessed to serve social purposes and deliver societal value. This is where the third mission of the universities comes into play (OECD, 2008; Scheidewind, 2016; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011); in the following, we summarize and draw an interim conclusion concerning the contemporary orientation of the first mission and the second mission of universities: 1. Concerning the first mission, (academic) teaching, the university that follows neo-liberal demands adopts the role of training a skilled labor force for the society’s economy. In this context, graduates’ “employability” appears as a major goal of university education. Employability has been understood as the ability to get a job and maintain and develop skills to stay in a job (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). It has been associated with the concept of “lifelong learning” in a “knowledgebased society” and marks the entry stage of qualification for the labor market (Laredo, 2007b). 2. With regard to the second mission of universities, neo-liberalism perceives research as the input and driver for innovation and transfer, contributing to the progress and future development of the economy (Link & Siegel, 2007). The literature on changing knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny

16

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

et al., 2003) points out the importance of the university’s second mission and its changing role as shown in the concepts of the Regional Innovation System, Triple Helix, or the Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a; Cooke, 2001; Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b). The following subsection provides a systematization of the most common definitions of “third mission.”

2.1.2

Systematization and Discussion of Selected Definitions of Third Mission

The third mission of the university is a global phenomenon. However, it is subject to regional conditions that are adapted at the local level. Consequently, there is no single valid definition of the third mission, but there are different approaches with different focuses (Berghaeuser & Hoelscher, 2020; Henke, 2019; Henke et al., 2015; Roessler, 2016; Roessler et al., 2015). From a content perspective, the third mission is the exchange between the university and its non-university environment. This also reflects the organizational goal of the university, namely to open up and pass on knowledge via the two core functions, research and teaching (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2012, p. 363). Since the third mission of universities is defined differently and associated with different ideas, a deeper insight into the topical area of the third mission proved to be helpful. A deeper understanding was gained, for example, through a review of the most common definitions of the third mission that formed the starting point for our thesis. (See Table 2.1). The selection presented was based on a literature review we carried out for this thesis. We paid particular attention to the focal points in the definitions and ordered them into a classificatory system. The formation of classification categories was based on the distinctions which originated from the literature. The literature on the third mission of universities distinguishes between a narrow economic view (we called this “economic contribution”) and a broader societal view (we called this “societal contribution”) of the activities of the third mission of universities (Göransson et al., 2009; Lassnigg & Auer, 2012; Thorn & Soo, 2006). In addition, we added the hybrid of “economic and societal contribution” as a third type of classification for definitions that cannot be assigned clearly. Table 2.1 presents the selected definitions in ascending order by year of publication. Our selection (see Table 2.1) included definitions from the year 2000 to 2015 and represented a cross-section of the understanding of the third mission over more than a decade.

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

17

Tab. 2.1 Selected definitions of the third mission of universities #

Author

1

Etzkowitz & 2000 Leydesdorff (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b, p. 110)

Year

“The increased salience of knowledge Economic and research to economic development contribution has opened up a third mission: the role of the university in economic development.”

2

Molas-Gallart et al. (MolasGallart et al., 2002b, p. iii)

“Universities have been founded principally on two sets of activities: teaching and research. However, universities have always made contributions, both directly and indirectly, to decision-making in the wider society; this is their ‘Third Mission’. Third stream activities are therefore concerned with the generation, use, application and exploitation of knowledge and other university capabilities outside academic environments. In other words, the Third Stream is about the interactions between universities and the rest of society.”

3

Thorn & Soo 2006 (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 3)

“Universities are increasingly considered Economic and instruments of social and economic societal development and face rising expectations contribution in terms of training qualified ‘knowledge workers’, creating insights of direct relevance to society, and engaging in commercial activity. The new role of universities as entrepreneurs and contributors to social and economic development has been characterized as a third mission.”

4

Laredo

“Universities are seen as Economic quasi-production sites for the knowledge contribution society. Thus, third mission depends on the function the university missions perform and is carried out first in tertiary mass education, second, in profession-oriented qualification and research, and third, in training of young academics and top-level research.”

2002

2007

Citation

Classification

Economic and societal contribution

(continued)

18

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Tab. 2.1 (continued) #

Author

Year

Citation

5

Jongbloed et al. (Jongbloed et al., 2008a)

2008

“The third mission therefore consists of a Economic and knowledge transfer function as well as a societal more general community function. It is contribution an umbrella term that refers to a wide variety of principles and strategies for economic and social development.”

Classification

6

Montesinos et al.

2008

“The third mission of universities is Economic and perceived in a functional context and this societal entails a social, an entrepreneurial and an contribution innovative dimension. Third mission is carried out with non-academic actors and provides a contribution for society.”

7

Göransson et al. (Göransson et al., 2009, p. 157)

2009

“The relationship between higher education and society beyond the first (education) and second (research) missions of universities is generally understood as the ‘third mission.’”

8

Zomer & Benneworth (Zomer & Benneworth, 2011, p. 98)

2011

“The idea of a third mission for Economic and universities—as currently societal understood—emerged at a particular contribution time and place within a changing society. Over time, it has acquired a degree of autonomy as something shaping not only debates about universities’ societal impacts, but also the meaning of university. The third mission has emerged from this evolutionary process to become a mature additional mission of universities, supported by individual universities as well as at a national policy level. The idea continues to evolve, with successes being extended and failures leading to evolutionary dead-ends and policy lacunas, as policy-makers distance themselves from those failures.”

9

Lassnig & Auer (Lassnigg & Auer, 2012, p. 9)

2012

“The ‘Third Mission’ is about the Economic and assertion that with recent social and societal economic developments, universities contribution have acquired a ‘Third Mission’ in addition to their two traditional functions of teaching and research. This can be described as providing more extensive services for their local and regional environment.”

Societal contribution

(continued)

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

19

Tab. 2.1 (continued) #

Author

Year

Citation

10

Szadkowski (Szadkowski, 2013, p. 206)

2013

“Therefore, the number of university Economic stakeholders grows and their needs contribution multiply. In order to secure their own position, and very often also their financial interests, universities must meet these growing demands, and increasingly they do so. The set of these activities is often labelled as the ‘third mission’, a critical (but not new) dimension of university operations.”

Classification

11

Henke et al. (Henke et al., 2015, p. 40)

2015

“The Third Mission describes activities Economic and of a university that take place in the societal context of teaching and research, without contribution being teaching or research itself or without being teaching or research alone. The activities are characterized by the fact that they include stakeholders outside the academic sphere, serve societal development interests that cannot be served by the conventional provision of services in teaching and research alone, and use resources from research and/or teaching.”

12

Roessler et al. (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 10)

2015

“The Third Mission of Universities Economic and extends the radius of activity of societal universities to economic, social, political contribution and political spheres in the region and beyond. New service areas are also being opened up. Due to the growing importance of the commitment of universities in these areas, the Third Mission of Universities is emerging as an independent field of activity and performance.”

In Table 2.1, we presented a selection of salient definitions of the third mission of higher education institutions based on our literature review and assigned a classification (economic contribution, societal contribution, hybrid of economic and societal contribution) to each definition. The classification was made according to how the author of this thesis understood each definition. In the further course, we will discuss and review them in the chronological order outlined in Table 2.1. Our goal was to develop a useful understanding of the third mission of universities for this thesis.

20

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000) noted that the advent of the third mission incorporated strong ties towards policy and economy. In turn, the definition contained the altered role of the university in that scenario. This was fostered by higher education policies throughout all OECD countries over the last 20 years (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000a). In their definition of the third mission of universities, the university has gained a more prominent role in the advancement of economic development through their services in teaching and research. This allows an assignment of the understanding of the third mission to the category of economic contribution. Mollas-Gallart et al. (2002) were concerned with a policy research project of the Russel Group in the United Kingdom and dealt with the problem of measuring third mission activities. They called the third mission of a university “third stream” and included “interactions between universities and the rest of society.” Further, universities were ascribed a more prominent role within the knowledge-based society with specific emphasis on “university commercial activities” (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002b, p. iv). This understanding of a university’s third mission emphasizes the “interaction” between the universities and the “society” as well the salient position within the “knowledge-based economy” and points out the “commercial” nature of “activities.” In essence, Mollas-Gallart et al. (2002) aimed to develop a system of indicators to support higher education managers and government officials in their funding decisions. They proposed a conceptual framework for the analysis of third stream activities (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002a, p. 27): On the one hand, this framework included capabilities such as the knowledge capabilities and facilities of universities. This was linked to the purpose of developing and using these. On the other hand, the framework should cover the concrete activities of universities. These were to be categorized according to research, teaching, and communication. The goal was to make third stream activities visible to third parties. In this context, a suitable measurement and survey system was developed and proposed (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002a, p. 28). This work aimed to provide an evidencebased data basis for decision-making in the financial management of universities. The developed concept was based on an analysis of the study situation on third stream activities known at that time (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002a, p. 15). Even if the empirical basis of the project seems to be very thin, the conceptual part provides important aspects for understanding the third mission of universities for our thesis. Here, the third mission of higher education institutions is understood in both ways: economically and socially. Thorn & Soo (2006) relied on the situation of universities and their third mission activities in Latin America in a policy research paper. On a macro level,

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

21

Thorn & Soo (2006) analyzed and discussed trends and challenges of the third mission of universities in Latin America according to the categories “advanced education” (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 6), “research and innovation” (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 10) and “knowledge and technology transfer” (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 13). They also looked at selected aspects of university governance (e.g., decentralization) on a meso level (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 18). They concluded that the universities were in a good starting position to contribute to development in the sense of a third mission (Thorn & Soo, 2006, p. 19). However, their policy research paper focused on the classical technology transfer function of universities and its potentially positive effects on economic and social development. But Thorn & Soo (2006) also noted a relatively concrete understanding with their idea of the third mission of universities. It included both an economic and a societal dimension and assigned universities the task of providing concrete outputs. Thus, they were to contribute to problem-solving and the progress of a country’s or region’s society and economy. It stands out that, on the one hand, the universities were ascribed the role of an “instrument for problem-solving,” and, on the other hand, universities as institutions should slip into the role of entrepreneurs and contributors. Laredo (2007) introduced a different approach to understanding the third mission of universities. In his research article, he traced the origins and motives for the third mission of universities. In doing so, he postulated that the third mission had developed primarily from the research mission of higher education institutions (Laredo, 2007a, p. 442). He also based his considerations on the third mission of universities on an altered understanding of knowledge production and dissemination at universities (Laredo, 2007a, p. 443). This also included a different expectation of universities as institutions, namely to be quasi-production sites for the knowledge-based society (Laredo, 2007a, p. 444). Finally, he developed a hypothesis based on a literature analysis. He wanted this to be understood as a proposal concerning the third mission of universities and suggested that the latter should not be structured according to the three missions (teaching, research, and third mission) in isolation. Rather, they should depend on the functions each of the missions performed (Laredo, 2007a, p. 452). He argued that all universities have their individual mix of these functions, and he acknowledged both their dependence on the historical development of universities as institutions and their capacity as strategic actors. The three functions are first, tertiary mass education, second, professionoriented qualification and research, and third, training of young academics and top-level research (Laredo, 2007a, p. 453). The bachelor level as a training of students for the labor market covered the first functional area, mainly seen at the

22

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

local level. The second functional area referred to the master level and its educational aim of serving industry and related research activities. The third functional area referred to the concentration on top-level research and the qualification of young academics. Laredo’s (2007) approach seems useful for our thesis, as it offers three functional areas for recording the third mission of higher education institutions. It also offers sufficient flexibility for analysis and interpretation (the keywords here are: dependence on the historical development and strategic decisions of the higher education institution in question). It can also be concluded that the three briefly outlined functional areas allow both an application orientation (e.g., tertiary mass education at the bachelor level) and an orientation towards research (e.g., doctoral training). For Jongbloed et al. (2008), understanding transfer and the third mission is rooted in two functions: the third mission contains a knowledge transfer function and a community function. Further, they conceived of the third mission of universities as an umbrella term for strategy formation for economic and social issues (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). Thus, the definition carved out the twofold nature of the third mission divided between economic and societal functions. Montesinos et al. (2008) provided the insight that the third mission entailed three dimensions: the social, the entrepreneurial, and the innovative dimension of a universities’ third mission (Montesinos et al., 2008, p. 270). In their notion, the third mission is broadly defined but not very generalized. However, the definition implied that higher education institutions interact with non-academic circles in society and generate concrete contributions or outputs. The argument of Montesinos et al. (2008) followed a similar approach to Laredo’s (2007), arguing that third mission activities must be seen in a functional context or different dimensions. Gäransson et al. (2009) emphasized the third mission’s support for civil society in a research article on “(n)ew activities of universities in transfer and extension.” The insights were based on an analysis of third mission constellations in different countries according to country sizes and income levels (Göransson et al., 2009, p. 158). The countries in question were divided into three categories: countries with a low economic level, a medium economic level, and a high economic level. In countries with a high economic level, the third mission was considered an “additional new mission” by higher education policy (Göransson et al., 2009, p. 160). In their macro analysis, the authors concluded that the third mission comprises both economic and social dimensions (Göransson et al., 2009, p. 164). In addition, Göransson et al. (2009) emphasized that although the third mission is a global phenomenon, it is practiced quite differently in national and regional contexts.

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

23

Benneworth & Zomer (2011) described the interplay between the university as a “corporate actor” and higher education policy as a “system actor” to foster the third mission as a further task of universities. Their research article elaborated the Dutch context of the historical development of the third mission of universities. It leads to the conclusion that the third mission is both a policy task (on the macro level) and a university task (on the meso level). Further, Benneworth & Zomer (2011) argued that “commercialization has become an intrinsic part of what universities do.” The “third mission was a response to demands from government, industry and other societal actors” and “[it] has become one of the key threads of the higher education system” (Benneworth & Zomer, 2011, p. 98). Similarly, Lassnig & Auer (2012) underscore that the third mission can be either explored from a narrow commercial and technical view or a broader social viewpoint (Lassnigg & Auer, 2012, p. 117). The study focused on the city of Vienna (Austria) and examined the third mission in the local context. It consisted of three parts: an analysis of the discourses around the third mission, an analysis from a higher education policy perspective, and an exploration of the view of the third mission among local stakeholders. The study aimed to take stock of the existing situation and develop recommendations for local decision-making bodies. It noted that there was no uniform definition of the third mission and that it had to be developed within the local context. It also found that the term “third mission” represents a change in the tasks of the universities and that decisionmaking levels need to understand this and take it into account in their decisions (Lassnigg & Auer, 2012, p. 166). Szadkowski (2013) provided a relatively broad definition of the third mission in his research article. His definition cast the third mission as the universities’ response to the demands of multiple stakeholders (Szadkowski, 2013, p. 206). His research article was based on a literature review and highlighted the third mission activities of universities against the background of Marxist education theory. The selected definitions from Roessler et al. (2015) and Henke et al. (2015) reflected the third mission activities in the German higher education context (See Table 2.1). With regard to the state of knowledge on the third mission of universities in Germany, these definitions go back to two salient projects (Hachmeister et al., 2015a; Henke et al., 2015, 2016; Roessler et al., 2015). Both projects pursued the goal of gaining a holistic understanding of the third mission of universities and its and its measurement and presentation in the external image of higher education institutions in Germany. Hence, Henke et al. (2015) and Roessler et al. (2015) have contributed to the systematization of the third mission (and the underlying services and activities) of universities in Germany.

24

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Roessler et al. (2015, 2016) examined the third mission as a performance dimension of universities of applied sciences in particular (UAS) in the context of a federal research project. Further, they recorded their findings in a series of working papers (Duong et al., 2016b; Hachmeister et al., 2015b; Roessler et al., 2015). Roessler et al. (2015) examined the third mission in the context of applied research at universities of applied sciences employing a literature analysis and interviews with decision-makers from selected UAS. Further, Roessler et al. (2015) proposed a process-oriented view on the third mission services of the universities to be able to record and present these suitably. They also found that the UAS have already been very active in the field of the third mission and offer much more than just teaching and applied research (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 38). Their understanding of the third mission and the empirically supported systematization behind it helped to better classify the third mission in the area of UAS with regard to application-oriented research. Henke et al. (2015) developed a concept for communicating the third mission of higher education institutions. Their work followed a similar direction to that of Roessler et al. (2015) as it pursued the goal of finding a way to make the third mission services of the universities transparent beyond the core areas of research and teaching. A funding line of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research supported the project. Henke et al. (2015) noted that an inconsistent understanding of the third mission prevailed in the literature (Henke et al., 2015, p. 6). Hence, they developed the foundations for a uniform understanding of the third mission of higher education institutions and proposed a separate definition for the German context (see Table 2.1). Their literature analysis also found that the third mission was significant for the relationship between the higher education institution and the region (Henke et al., 2015, p. 15). Further, they argued that the emergence of the third mission could be traced back to the phenomenon of massification of higher education and the new role of the university within the knowledge-based society. This was exemplified by offering professional training by the university (Henke et al., 2015, p. 13). Roessler (2016) analyzed universities of applied sciences and their third mission in her thesis (Roessler, 2016). She combined the concepts of Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009) in one analytical framework and examined the potential of German universities of applied sciences to conduct basic research in an application context. Roessler designed the empirical part of the thesis as a mixed-methods study (standardized survey plus qualitative interviews of professors and university managers). Her methodology drew on Carayannis & Campbell (2009), who identified Mode 3 and the Quadruple Helix as related concepts. Mode 3 refers to the notion that different modes of

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

25

knowledge production coexist and can influence and promote each other (e.g., interdisciplinarity) on both, the micro and meso levels. At the macro level, the concept of the Quadruple Helix helps to grasp and understand the underlying interactions between the university, the industrial state and civil society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). Roessler’s (2016) findings and conclusions have shown that universities of applied sciences have the potential to develop into a new type of university. Here, the activities and experiences regarding the third mission may have promoted a development towards a “Mode 3 University” (Roessler, 2016). Finally, to round off the definitions of the third mission in the German context, the Science Council’s (2016) understanding of universities’ third mission was also a consideration that must be included: the German Science Council (2016) used the term “transfer” to describe mutual interactions between scientific staff and individuals outside academia. On the one hand, the term was understood in a broader sense and incorporated all kinds of activities relating directly to teaching and research. On the other hand, the German Science Council (2016) provided a narrow definition of the term “transfer,” pointing at the “third mission” of universities (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016, p. 5). As a result, transfer bore the connotation of technology transfer (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016, p. 21). Thus, one may conclude that the policy debate on the third mission of universities in Germany largely focused on knowledge and technology transfer (Göransson et al., 2009). Conclusion and derivation of a working definition of third mission for the dissertation In general, the literature points to a “quasi-commercial exploitation mission” of the contemporary university. Also, the literature on the third mission highlights two main contributions of the university, that is, to the economy and societal development. The former notion focuses on individual business interests, whereas the latter puts a public benefit at the center. Thus, it has been—and continues to be—a challenge to define the major scope of the term “third mission” (Nelles & Vorley, 2010, p. 344). Overall, one may conclude that the literature on higher education established the term “third mission” very well (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Goldstein, 2010; Power & Malmberg, 2008). However, a general definition of the term still lacks in the literature (Lassnigg & Auer, 2012; Roessler, 2016). Rather, different approaches and prospects form specific definitions, reflecting the high degree of heterogeneity and complexity of the third mission of universities (Krücken et al., 2009, p. 143). Further, in the German context, the third mission has been understood as an important task of the university, supplementing the core missions of teaching and research (Scheidewind, 2016, p. 1). In addition, we concluded that all definitions

26

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

of the term “third mission” discussed here also show a convergence. We assume this is because, in most cases, the economic and social contributions of the third mission of higher education institutions were considered simultaneously. We also perceived a strong normative orientation of understanding the third mission in the direction of research. Vice versa, we found that a normative orientation of the third mission of universities concerning teaching appears to be less pronounced. Based on our gathered insights from this section, we defined the third mission for this thesis accordingly: The third mission is understood as the generation of a relevant contribution to the economy and society by the university and its stakeholders. The relevant contributions are made in close connection with the two core missions of the university, namely teaching and research. These involve both internal and external stakeholders in the creation and implementation process. Further, the third mission takes place at the local level and is embedded in the respective regional and national contexts. This definition provided us access to the exploration of the third mission for this thesis because the definition takes the following aspects into account: first, an openness concerning contributions or outputs (delivered by the university) in both economic and societal spheres; second, a clear relation to the core missions of (university) teaching and research; third, the involvement of internal and external stakeholders in the development and implementation of third mission activities; and fourth, the definitions’ focus on local and regional contexts. The following section examines the teaching orientation of the third mission in more detail.

2.1.3

The Teaching Orientation of the Third Mission

In the context of this thesis, we asked ourselves what references to teaching the literature on the third mission of universities would have to offer. This subsection pursues this question and provides an overview of current literature on the third mission and university teaching. In the context of the research-oriented third mission, universities were increasingly seen as centers for innovation (Benneworth et al., 2016; Krücken, 2013; Leišyt˙e & Fochler, 2018), and there is an endless stream of literature that has fed the subject from various disciplines. On the subject of the teaching-oriented third mission, however, the literature remains quite manageable. The various sources follow different logics, depending on the context. In the following, we have collected sources related to the teaching orientation of the third mission. Table 2.2 presents the selected sources of a teaching-oriented third mission chronologically by year of publication. It is structured to highlight

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

27

the strategic as well as the operational aspect of a teaching-oriented third mission. Our selection contains sources published between 2000 and 2019, representing a cross-section of how a teaching-oriented third mission has been understood over almost two decades. Tab. 2.2 Strategic assignments and operational implementation to establish a teachingoriented third mission #

Author

Year

Strategic assignment

Operational implementation

1

Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff

2000

Teaching mission linked to research and economic development

No operational implementation mentioned

2

Chatterton 2000 & Goddard

Regional responses by university through professors

Offering relevant courses to labor market (entailing project work)

3

MollasGallart et al.

2002

University providing relevant degrees for training professions

No operational implementation mentioned

4

Laredo

2007

Attractor role of the university for a region and mass tertiary education at bachelor level serving regional or local labor markets

Involvement of industry in the development of courses

5

Göransson et al.

2009

Qualification of professions No operational as teaching-related implementation mentioned contribution

6

Furco

2010

Community-engaged teaching to enhance regional development

7

Kroll et al.

2016

Exchange of human capital Student internships and use to advance regional of external lecturers in the development courses

8

Pavlin

2016

Development of graduates’ No operational competencies as output implementation was expectation from industry mentioned towards the university

Internships fostering practical skills of students and project work for application of taught knowledge

(continued)

28

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Tab. 2.2 (continued) #

Author

Year

Strategic assignment

Operational implementation

9

Magnell

2019

Teacher- and student-centered strategies to establish connections to practice and thematic areas to promote the profiling of relevant course offerings

Student internships, use of external lecturers from practice in teaching, project work integrated into the curriculum or additional to it; coupling of practice relevance and research to enhance a course curriculum (especially master level)

In the further course, we will discuss and review the teaching-oriented understanding of the third mission in the chronological order outlined in Table 2.2. Our goal is to develop a useful understanding of the teaching orientation of universities’ third mission for this thesis. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000) attached great importance to the teaching mission of universities. They called the university a “key institution of the knowledge sector” as long as it maintains its educational mission. According to this, the core function of teaching is seen as a competitive advantage of the university if it is related to research and economic development (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b, p. 117). Furthermore, the teaching mission of a university is seen in the context of the concept of lifelong learning, making a university that is connected to the world of work more important (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b, p. 118). However, their statements remain at the macro level, and empirical evidence is missing so far. In one of his publications, Etzkowitz (2008) indicated that the university might train workers for local economies (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8). Hence, one could conclude that the third mission teaching activities were located at the institutional level (meso level). Chatterton & Goddard (2000) emphasized that universities have developed and offered answers to regional needs through their professors (micro level). This included, for example, offering courses relevant to the labor market with project work to promote regional development issues. These were also intended to fuel students’ job-related learning (Chatterton & Goddard, 2000). Hence, one may conclude that the authors placed the activities of the third mission in terms of teaching on the individual level (micro level).

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

29

Molas-Gallart et al. (2002) recorded the idea of the provision of “recognized academic degrees” through the teaching function of the university, which was defined as “third stream” in the event of involving stakeholders from outside academia and study programs targeting “professional students” (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002b, p. 24). Hence, one may conclude that the authors located the implementation of a teaching-related third mission at the level of the stakeholders (individual level, micro level) and the university as an institution (meso level). Laredo (2007) provided a reference point for the role of university teaching in the teaching-oriented third mission (Laredo, 2007a, 2007b). He argued that universities might offer mass tertiary education at the undergraduate level with employability as a core characteristic, which would take place in a regional context and serve the regional labor market. Further, he based his argumentation on the fact that the primary output of universities is knowledge. This is also realized in the teaching context in the shape of appropriate course offerings relevant to the local industry; in addition, these were developed in cooperation with the latter (Laredo, 2007b, p. 10). Therefore, one can argue the teaching function of universities in the context of a university-industry collaboration can be determined as the third mission. Laredo (2007) also emphasized the local dimension of the third mission of universities, namely that the university assumes the role of “attractor” for a region. This role has two sides: the university acts as a regional employer and as a higher education provider; he categorized this as a core dimension of the third mission (Laredo, 2007b, p. 7). This conceptual argumentation turned out to be useful for this thesis, as it provided the reference point for categorizing CSPs as a teaching-oriented third mission; in his remarks, Laredo (2007) identified the implementation of teaching-related third mission activities at the institutional level. Göransson et al. (2009) indicated that the third mission could also take place in the area of professional qualification and that universities could make a concrete contribution here (Göransson et al., 2009, p. 164). Göransson et al. (2009) also placed the teaching-related third mission activities at the level of the university as an institution (meso level) that delivers concrete contributions. Furco (2010) referred to an understanding of the third mission as “university engagement.” This included two streams of “community-engaged teaching” activities linked to a contribution to society: firstly, “community-engaged teaching” entailing internships that foster students’ practical skills and, secondly, project-based learning or field studies which provide the framework for applying knowledge from the classroom to “community-based issues” (Furco, 2010). Consequently, Furco (2010) placed a teaching-related third mission at the institutional (meso) level. Further, one may conclude that Furcco (2010) worked out

30

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

two essential elements of the universities of applied sciences and their teaching mission: internships in the local industry and practical projects integrated into teaching. Kroll et al. (2016) referred to the exchange of human capital regarding the teaching-oriented third mission. This included, for example, internships for students, the recruitment of external lecturers, and the supervision with the involvement of external partners in the context of working on relevant topics that benefit regional development (Kroll et al., 2016). Kroll et al. (2016) have seen teaching-related third mission activities on the individual level (micro level) and illustrated this with concrete examples (e.g., internships). Pavlin (2016) noted that “university-business cooperation” contains external factors as well as internal factors, for example, in the case of the academic tradition and teaching towards practice (Pavlin, 2016, p. 25). Consequently, this has led to the adaption of diversity within the Bologna system resulting in a higher education-based dual system in some European countries (Pavlin, 2016, p. 26). As a conclusion, Pavlin’s (2016) research revealed that employers in regional settings expected the university to “develop competencies of graduates” embedded in the process of innovation (Pavlin, 2016, p. 34). In other words, the study suggested that students’ competence development is what is expected of universities to contribute to innovation. Magnell’s dissertation (2019) examined how academics have established connections to professional practice and research in engineering education (Magnell, 2019). She found out that academics with very intensive contacts to professional practice would integrate activities such as projects or case studies into the curriculum. In contrast, academics with less intensive contacts to professional practice tended to integrate guest lecturers into their courses (Magnell, 2019, p. 41). The study also brought to light that there were differences in the quantity and type of activities and that academics would have requested an institutional policy that should have supported their activities concerning connections to practice (Magnell, 2019, p. 42). The work of Magnell (2019) identified and postulated four strategies for establishing links with professional practice. The first two strategies were categorized as teacher-centered or personnel-centered and included, for example, an internship office as a supplement to the curriculum or the integration of guest lecturers from professional practice into the courses. The latter two strategies included project work from external project sponsors (industry) that dealt with real-life practical issues. These were integrated into existing curricula or were seen as a further aspect of teaching in addition to the existing curricula. Both strategies were related to activities involving students and therefore categorized as student-centered (Magnell, 2019, p. 44). The study further confirmed

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

31

that links to professional practice and research activities in the context of teaching were not mutually exclusive but overlapping and strengthening each other (Magnell, 2019, p. 45). Finally, Magnell (2019) elaborated three discourses that would shape and promote the courses and their characteristics: first, the practical relevance and the benefits towards professional practice; second, the independence of the programs with respect to research; and third, the coupling of contact towards professional practice and research activities within curricula that would enhance sustainable development (Magnell, 2019, p. 47). She concluded that the knowledge gained in her dissertation could also be helpful to understand other approaches to professional practice and research (Magnell, 2019, p. 61). For the present thesis, the findings suggest that the access to the connections in professional practice and the empirical examples mentioned above help to better understand and grasp a teaching-oriented third mission. Of course, this must be viewed critically, as Magnell’s findings related to a national context (Sweden) and a specific educational field (engineering). However, she also argued that practice-oriented teaching and application-orientation in teaching and research had a long tradition in the engineering sciences that other areas could learn from (Magnell, 2019, p. 17). Conclusion In summary, we conclude that a university can function as a training center for local and regional labor markets in terms of a teaching-oriented third mission. External stakeholders (industry) are involved in teaching and curricular activities to develop student competencies and offer relevant degrees (with a particular focus on the bachelor’s degree). Thus, we assume that universities as institutions (meso level) and their professors (micro level) play a salient role in this. Furthermore, we believe that there is a dependence on local and regional contexts and thus on specific empirical cases. Subsequently, we interpreted CSPs as a teaching-oriented third mission for this thesis.

2.1.4

The Third Mission of Universities and Beyond

In this subsection, we address the question of what would come beyond the third mission of universities. By the notion “beyond the third mission,” we wanted to point out perceptions that lie outside the common interpretation of the third mission (which could be termed the mainstream perception of the third mission). This was fueled by the criticism that the current understanding of the third

32

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

mission is too entrepreneurial, hence limiting the perspective. It was postulated, for example, that a purely economic understanding was not suitable for meeting future challenges such as sustainability, ecology, or urgent societal issues (Berthold et al., 2010; Trencher et al., 2014; Yarime et al., 2012). In the following, ideas and approaches that go beyond the third mission are briefly outlined. They took up the criticism implicitly and explicitly and provided concrete ideas for a broader understanding of the third mission. These points have complemented our considerations on the third mission in this section. Exemplary approach for the third mission of universities and social responsibility In the German context, for example, Berthold et al. (2010) record their thoughts on third mission approaches and beyond in a policy paper at an early stage. According to them, universities should contribute to solving real societal problems through third mission activities (Berthold et al., 2010). Or, to put it in other words, they perceived universities as a “social protagonist” with an inherent “social obligation.” They based their argumentation on the fact that German universities are predominantly public-funded institutions. Consequently, they are a public good that should benefit civil society. Accordingly, universities have an obligation to society and, conversely, society also has an obligation to universities (Berthold et al., 2010, p. 5). A knowledge society could no longer make decisions without a sound scientific basis. According to Berthold et al. (2010), the university system plays an important role for society in this respect. Thus, universities are becoming important places for delivering services to society (Berthold et al., 2010, p. 7). Further, universities would create trust and retention in a knowledge society through cooperation in projects. In addition, projects might give students the opportunity to gather experience and contribute as “responsible citizens” (Berthold et al., 2010, p. 9). Thereby, universities would develop a unique profile (Berthold et al., 2010, p. 10). Finally, Berthold et al. (2010) proposed to cluster third mission activities; accordingly, the university’s society-related activities could take place in four areas or levels: institutional, cultural, political, and individual (Berthold et al., 2010, p. 12). Berthold et al. (2010) showed the societal perspective of the third mission, whereby universities should contribute to solving social issues. However, we also gained the impression that they did so based on the economic perspective of the third mission because they also followed the credo of generating relevant output in return for public funding.

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

33

Alternative approach for the third mission of universities and sustainability In addition to the social responsibility of universities through third mission activities, we also encountered the idea of a sustainable university in which the university as an actor, together with other actors, is fostering societal transformation. Yarime et al. (2012) and Trencher et al. (2014) have discussed this idea in more detail. With an outlook towards sustainability, Yarime (2012) postulated that the traditional notion of the “third mission”—based on the “entrepreneurial model” and “conventional technology transfer practices”—will not meet future requirements for the social transformation needed against the backdrop of climate change and resulting challenges to regional and urban locations (Yarime et al., 2012, p. 109). Trencher (2014) argued that sustainability gains importance beyond the third mission. He proposed that the university would function as an “emerging university” incorporating “co-creation for sustainability” (Trencher et al., 2014, p. 2). The concept is rooted in the effects of the global economic exploitation of resources on the planet, resulting in an impaired environment. The pursuits of income maximization and pure economic development are thus no longer desirable goals on their own. From there, “[a] broader and more ambitious function has emerged—that of a societal transformer and co-creator” (Trencher et al., 2014, p. 4). A new definition of the university’s role was proposed in which it “collaborates with diverse social actors to create societal transformations in the goal of materializing sustainable development in a specific location, region or societal sub-sector” (Trencher et al., 2014, p. 4). In addition, Trencher et al. (2014) pointed out that their concept of “co-creation for sustainability” might be able to contribute to the necessary transformation regarding sustainability and the associated social transformation. Further, the authors perceived the university as a “multi-stakeholder platform” in the process of a two-way exchange; these two-way exchange activities are based on shared values working works towards the same goal, in fact generating a contribution to sustainable development (Trencher et al., 2014, p. 12). They also defined five dimensions for their concept based on a bundle of activities: first, knowledge management; second, technical demonstrations and experiments; third, technology transfer and economic development; fourth, reform of built and natural environment; and fifth, socio-technical experiments. The authors contrast their concept of an “emerging mission” with that of the “third mission” and point towards the shift within academia concerning the latter. This shift sees a move from the economic-driven function of the third mission towards a “co-creation for sustainability” (Trencher et al., 2014, p. 32) that contributes to the management of climate change and its consequences through third-mission activities. This subsection considered examples of expanded perspectives on the third mission and beyond. We illustrated that third mission activities could go beyond a purely

34

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

economic function to serve various objectives, including social responsibility, sustainability, or the development of the universities of applied sciences’ mission, for example.

2.1.5

Concluding Remarks on the Third Mission of Universities

This section introduced different approaches and explored a range of definitions of the third mission with a particular focus on a teaching-oriented third mission. Each of the third mission’s conceptualizations presented here was rooted in the salient, economically driven approach. They had the goal to advance the performance of an economic and societal system in particular. The brief overview of Section 2.1.4. suggested that despite the broader perspectives on the third mission of universities (social responsibility, sustainability), economic considerations still prevail. The likely explanation is that the third mission of universities emerged against the backdrop of the neoliberal school of thought. This entailed that higher education took place on a “quasi-market” with competition amongst and between higher education institutions where the “corporate model” served as a guiding principle for a university’s activities. On this account, the third mission of universities emerged by utilizing the institution’s core activities, that is, teaching and research. This has been contextualized by an “innovation process” within the “knowledge-based society.” Thus, universities as organizations (meso level) and academics as individuals (micro level) faced an alteration of their roles in the system. This point warrants critique: firstly, it neglects other schools of thought in favor of one “ideology” (representing a narrow worldview). Secondly, the monotony of key precepts opposes diversity in higher education and the truth-seeking process of research. It follows that the purpose of higher education should exceed the mere commercialization of higher education. To illustrate the point: the German context still regards higher education as a “public good,” and higher education institutions are a part of public provision. This traditional perception also has its right to exist. For example, Papadimitriou (2020) postulated that the third mission is a “public mission” and referred to their task of contributing to the provision of knowledge, fostering critical discourse, and thereby contributing to fundamental social issues (Papadimitriou, 2020). According to our comprehension, this can be interpreted to the effect that third mission activities contain more than just a purely economic benefit.

2.1 Characterizing the Third Mission of Higher Education Institutions

35

As someone employed at a university, the author of this thesis would also like to add that it is essential for contemporary universities to take strategic action and to translate these into profiling activities. However, policies and framework conditions have not been consistent enough to reach the imposed goals (the catchphrase here being scarce resources). This is accompanied by the danger of a “mission overload” of higher education institutions that are in the majority publicly funded. To a certain degree, applying economic approaches to a system might turn out to be useful to allocate given resources efficiently and effectively. Yet, it also runs the risk of oversteering, understood as a limitation of margins in teaching and research. Hence, although the third mission intends to increase activities in teaching and research to give them additional sense, this can eventually have the opposite effect. To round off the picture, Vorley & Nelles (2009) argue that “the Third Mission remains under-theorized” and “the next phase of the Third Mission demands an understanding beyond prescription” (p. 284). Furthermore, the “Third Mission is increasingly well documented in the literature (…) primarily on case studies and best practice” (Vorley & Nelles, 2009, p. 285). With respect to a critique of the third mission, the authors delivered three major points: first, that the third mission remains “under-theorized”; second, that prescriptive works have dominated the literature on the third mission; and third, that the third mission contains a plethora of literature. In addition, “much of the academic debate has a focus on the AngloAmerican tradition” (Nelles & Vorley, 2010, p. 343). Further, one may conclude that the third mission emerged as an actual existing development in both the practice of higher education and in literature (Roessler, 2016; Vorley & Nelles, 2009). Thus, the third mission “can and should reinforce the missions of teaching and research” (Nelles & Vorley, 2010, p. 342). Finally, we would like to briefly state our own point of view: we agree with the argumentation as just presented above. Based on the literature analysis, we have gained a similar impression on the state of the third mission of universities and have drawn quite comparable conclusions: an economic perspective has primarily dominated the third mission. This is followed by its resulting benefits for the wider society. Empirical studies have developed a number of conceptualizations to capture and understand the third mission systematically. The first section of this chapter presented the conceptual and theoretical considerations and selected conceptualizations of the third mission this thesis used for its analytical framework in more detail. They adhere to the economic perspective as we assumed that CSPs serve economic purposes.

36

2.2

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Germany’s System of Higher Education

This section is a survey of the German higher education system and contextualizes this dissertation. Contextualization is important to gain an understanding of the basic structure and characteristics of the German higher education system. Special features lie, for example, in central characteristics such as a distinction between research universities and universities of applied sciences. In addition, the system is characterized by federalism, which has resulted in universities adapted to regional contexts. Consequently, this section aims to give a current picture of higher education in Germany and establish a connection to the first and second missions of research and teaching. Then it briefly presents the key characteristics of the German higher education system. The third point discusses the internal and external stakeholders of the universities and their importance. The fourth section pays attention to higher education policy reforms and their impact on practices in the higher education system. And finally, the fifth part deals with the reforms that formed the basis for the differentiation processes in the German higher education system and paved the way for various forms of differentiation within higher education. Due to the scope of this topic, however, we limit the discussion to the aspects most important for this thesis.

2.2.1

Outline of the Character and Key Characteristics of Current Higher Education in Germany

Germany’s educational system is divided into five sectors: the elementary, primary, secondary, tertiary, and further education sectors. Higher education institutions (HEIs) belong to the tertiary sector (KMK, 2017, p. 24). The higher education system in Germany is shaped mainly by the federal states and the federal government. More than 90 percent of the universities are state-owned (Wilkesmann, 2016). Therefore, universities operate as public corporations or as corporations under public law, and thus the universities are subject to the legal supervision of the respective federal state (Maassen et al., 2019, p. 50). Usually, the federal Ministries of Science and the Ministers of Science (Bundesländer) represent the state (Teichler, 2008; Wilkesmann, 2019). All fundamental matters concerning universities are defined in state law through the state’s Higher Education Acts. The Higher Education Acts of the federal states (Länder) form the basis for the activities of the universities. These laws distinguish between different types of higher education institutions, with each type of higher education institution receiving a specific legal mandate. The fact that the

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

37

universities are the responsibility of the federal states is also regulated in the constitution (Grundgesetz). In addition, a state treaty stipulates that the federal states have to jointly coordinate their policies on fundamental issues of higher education and education policy. This joint coordination was institutionalized by the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (Kultusministerkonferenz, KMK). Each federal state has one vote and all state ministers from the federal state level responsible for education, science, and culture participate. This entails, for example, the formal recognition of university degrees, as in the case of CSPs. Consequently, the higher education system in Germany reflects the federal system of the Federal Republic of Germany, resulting in 16 higher education systems that vary in their similarities and differences. The so-called “German federalism” (Maassen et al., 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a) implies a high complexity of powers and accountabilities in Germany’s system of higher education. The following subsection briefly outlines the crucial features of a prototypical university in Germany. Usually, three main stakeholder groups participate in HEIs in Germany, with professors being the most important stakeholder group and employees and students forming the two other main groups. Professors are granted a very high degree of autonomy in their academic activities. This is due to the freedom of teaching and research guaranteed by the German constitution (Article 5, Grundgesetz). Regarding university management, an observable dichotomy between academia and administration is reflected in filling university management positions with professors as well as administrative experts. Thus, on the one hand, professors hold representative offices in academia—such as the offices of rector and vice-rector, or president and vice-president. They are elective offices, which means they are assigned for a certain period of time. The German Rectors’ Conference (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, HRK) is the main body representing universities’ interests in Germany. On the other hand, university administration features the office of the university chancellor. As a rule, a chancellor is an administrative expert or a lawyer. A university’s chancellor is a member of the rectorate and is responsible for the non-academic staff, finances, real estate, and legal and administrative tasks of a university. Consequently, this office plays an important role in university management. Thus, university management combines two organizational logics under one roof: academic disciplines and their typical characteristics and state administration and its distinct characteristics. The university administration is divided into four major areas: core administrative matters, student affairs, international affairs, and research matters. It is also involved in decision-making and governance through a proportionate number of seats in the senate for the administrative area.

38

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Faculties at each university consist of departments and within it chairs, that is, professorships. Faculties and chairs enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy, which can be seen, for example, in their authority to decide on funds and positions. A faculty or department is headed by an elected dean, who is usually a professor. They have the sovereign right to award academic degrees and to conduct examinations. In a faculty, a faculty council usually is the key decision-making body. Germany’s national higher education system is characterized by a significant functional and institutional diversity (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 26). However, the research-based university is perceived to be the core of Germany’s HE system (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a). Hence, the imitation of highly ranked research universities constitutes a “role model” within the national higher education system for all types of higher education institutions, even those that are not research-oriented universities per se (Enders, 2016). Usually, some of the HEIs are research universities, and this label signals more prestige within the functional and institutional diversity in the German HE system (Teichler, 2014). Furthermore, Teichler (2014) notes that the “university term” has a similar meaning on the international stage. The other types of higher education institutions in Germany include universities of applied sciences which emerged due to societal change and economic needs (Teichler, 2014). Overall, Germany’s system of higher education has been subject to a transformation process in recent years. It went from an elite to a mass system encompassing practice- and vocational-oriented teaching, applied research, and a close connection to regional development as well as internationalization (Enders, 2016, p. 504). To round off the picture of German higher education, we briefly present a number of important key characteristics. The first half of the subsection dealt with the character of the German higher education system. The second half is devoted to the facts about the key features. Types of institutions The German higher education system is large and diverse in terms of institutional types. The Federal Statistical Office (2020) lists a total of six categories of higher education institutions: universities, universities of applied sciences, art colleges, teacher training colleges, theological colleges, and administrative colleges (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 6). Germany has a total of 425 higher education institutions. These include 106 universities and 215 universities of applied sciences. The two categories of universities and universities of applied sciences (UAS) are dominant (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 6).

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

39

Students and graduates A total of 2.7 million students are enrolled at all types of higher education institutions, about 1.6 million of them at universities and nearly one million at universities of applied sciences (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 7). Thus, the majority of students study at a university. The number of students visiting universities of applied sciences, however, remains comparatively high. These figures alone indicate that UAS are of great importance for the higher education system. In addition, the following was noticeable in the distribution of student numbers among the German states: it stands out that the federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, and Baden-Wuerttemberg have the highest number of registered students. This applies to both universities and universities of applied sciences (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 8). In 2016, the overall number of graduates from the German higher education system was at 439,000; about 420,800 completed their studies within the standard study period (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018, p. 20). The average age of first-time graduates was 24 years (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018, p. 24). However, the statistical figures were not edited by type of institution. Academic staff In 2019, a total of more than 704,607 persons were employed at German higher education institutions (HRK, 2019). Of these, 394,878 worked in the scientific field, and 309,729 were employed in administration. With 188,047 employees, the majority of employees in the scientific sector were research assistants, and 47,568 persons were professors. The category of part-time personnel counted 147,343 employees and mainly included lecturers on a temporary assignment in addition to their main job. Funding In Germany, education is a state matter. This means that the federal states are responsible for the majority of higher education institutions, including basic funding. According to the German Rectors’ Conference (2020), the public sector finances 90 percent of higher education institutions in Germany. About 75 percent of funding comes from the budgets of the federal states. In addition, the Federal Government contributes to the financing of higher education through specific programs or the funding of research projects (e.g., Excellence Initiative, University Pact, etc.) (HRK, 2019). In 2018, the expenditure of all German higher education institutions amounted to around 57 billion euros (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018, p. 12). About 23 billion euros were allocated to the universities (without university hospitals) and about 7.3 billion euros to the universities of applied sciences (including administrative universities). In addition, the share of basic funding for higher education

40

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

institutions (by the federal states) amounted to about 26 billion euros, and the share of third-party funding was about 8 billion euros. In the case of third-party funding, the recent financial structure was as follows: 2.6 billion euros came from the German Research Foundation (DFG), 2.2 billion euros from the Federal Government, 0.1 billion euros from the federal states, 0.7 billion euros from the EU, 0.5 billion euros from foundations and 1.4 billion euros from industry (HRK, 2019; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018). In terms of funding volume, the industrial sector takes third place in terms of third-party funding, and we can therefore conclude that the industry is an influential player. However, the public sector is by far the most crucial player in the context of basic funding and third-party funding of universities in Germany. Therefore, it can be concluded that the public sector, i.e., the state, is an actor with a very high weight in German higher education. Governance Hüther & Krücken (2018) have characterized the governance shape of the German higher education system at the macro level as follows (Hüther & Krücken, 2018): it is a federal system, and the individual states play a major role, including the legal regulation of all matters of higher education. Contradictory, the federal government, however, plays a minor role and supplements demands with accompanying measures (e.g., future contracts for studies and teaching). In this, the Federal Constitutional Court and the constitutional courts of the German states proved to be other significant players in the governance of universities, as their rulings have repeatedly made essential adjustments to university legislation (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. xi). At the meso level (institutional level), the university council, senate, and university management boards were also identified as important central decision-making bodies. At the decentralized level of the universities (faculties), the dean’s office, the faculty council, and the chair system (including the professorships) were named. The interplay and design vary from state to state, so they are designed and practiced very heterogeneously. Types of degrees and dominant fields of study In the European Bologna Process, a study system with bachelor’s and master’s degrees was introduced. Beginning in the late 1990s, it has meanwhile been implemented for the majority of academic disciplines. As a rule, bachelor’s programs are designed for three and master’s programs for two years (Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Teichler, 2014). They are primarily oriented towards the requirements of the labor markets. When it comes to the training of junior scientists, a doctorate is required. This graduate education is still a privilege of research-oriented universities; a professor

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

41

supervises most doctoral students. A completed doctorate combined with sufficient industrial experience enables applicants to get a professorship at a university of applied sciences. A professorship at a research-oriented university usually presumes a habilitation (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. xii). Concerning the most studied subjects in the bachelor and master programs, the Federal Statistical Office (2020) drew the following picture: classified by subject groups, “law, economics, and social sciences,” “engineering,” and “mathematics and natural sciences” form by far the largest group of registered students (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 20). As measured by the number of enrolled students, the higher education system has grown by more than 40 percent in ten years (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018, p. 6).

2.2.2

Outline of Internal and External Stakeholders at Universities in Germany

The following subsection discusses the university’s internal and external stakeholders in Germany and their roles and tasks. Erhardt (2011) provided a valuable “stakeholder map” that included the most important stakeholder groups of higher education institutions (Erhardt, 2011) and made the distinction between internal and external stakeholders. The various stakeholders are also referred to as status groups in Germany. This comes with participation rights in the university’s governance (e.g., by voting rights in the senate) and certain privileges, such as the stakeholder group of professors’ granting of academic freedom. Following the definition of Freeman (1984), a stakeholder is “any group or individual, who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). In line with this definition, we refer to the status groups as stakeholders.

2.2.2.1 Internal Stakeholders Internal stakeholders stem from the “inner circle” of the university and include professors, students, research assistants, and non-academic staff. External stakeholders include media, the accreditation council and accreditation agencies, research funding institutions, government agencies, alumni, students, parents and relatives, other educational institutions, research institutions, other universities, companies, the community, politics, the global public, and the scientific community (Erhardt, 2011, p. 12). In German higher education, stakeholders are defined by the Higher Education Acts issued by the individual federal states. They define the rights and obligations of university members and their status groups.

42

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

The status group of professors and academic staff is directly concerned with the core processes of universities, i.e., teaching and research. Professors perform their teaching and research tasks independently, while the remaining academic staff is dependent on their professors. As a rule, the professors are civil servants for life and, as mentioned above, perform their duties independently. This characteristic is also emphasized as a “cultural factor” by the German Science Council: “Other cultural factors operating in the German higher education system can only be stated here: the strong position of the status group of professors in Germany” (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a, p. 56). Additionally, the law defines students as internal stakeholders because they are directly involved in the university’s core missions. Non-academic staff supports the teaching and research and, therefore, also belongs to the internal stakeholder groups (Erhardt, 2011, p. 11). The particular position of professors in the German higher education system should again be pointed out. Erhardt (2011, p. 13) distinguishes the status groups of professors, academic staff, non-academic staff, and students. Their respective roles in research, teaching, other services, and administration include the following aspects: 1. The status group of professors occupies the roles of researcher or scholar in research. In teaching, they assume those of lecturers, speakers, and creators of teaching materials. Additional duties include services as reviewers, speakers, ambassadors, and contract researchers. Finally, a professor may take on functions or offices such as rector/principal, dean, member of the senate, chairman of a committee, or organizer. Consequently, professors are accountable for research and teaching and play a decisive role in their higher education institutions’ administration. They are also vital in the representation of their institution towards the public. Through their activities in research and teaching, professors advance the reputation of their respective institutions. In the case of a research-oriented university, professors have the privilege to train junior researchers and award a doctorate (Erhardt, 2011, p. 14). 2. The status group of academic staff is active in the research field as researchers, scholars, doctoral students, or post-docs. In teaching, academic members of staff work as lecturers, speakers, creators of teaching materials, and doctoral candidates. Concerning other services, they work as reviewers, speakers, or contract researchers; in terms of administration, they act as organizers. All work is done under the supervision of a professor. Thus, research assistants (academic staff) are on the payroll of their respective higher education institutions and work in many cases on their doctoral thesis or post-doc research projects. In Germany, their employment contracts are limited to six years

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

43

following the respective law (Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz, WissZeitVG). In the case of a research-oriented university, research assistants are crucial for the teaching-research nexus because they create teaching material, take on responsibility for lectures and organize teaching activities (Erhardt, 2011, p. 14). 3. The status group of non-academic staff has no direct role in research and a supportive role in teaching. However, in the field of teaching, they work as mentors, career advisors, and alumni officers. They also occupy positions as coordinators, infrastructure managers, or similar to support teaching and research. Hence, non-academic staff members assume administrative tasks and operate and maintain the infrastructure of a higher education institution. In addition, non-academic staff members play a crucial role in student’s career consulting (Erhardt, 2011, p. 15). 4. The status group of students is not restricted to the activity of studying. They also represent their interests in various governance bodies or can be employed as student assistants working for departments. They are leaners, fee payers, examinees, and student assistants. In the domain of administration, students show up as organizers of extracurricular events. Moreover, students shape a university’s additional activities, e.g., events in student life. Furthermore, students are crucial ambassadors of a university’s image towards external stakeholder groups. Finally, as graduate students or alumni, students play an important role in building and maintaining a university’s network (Erhardt, 2011, p. 16).

2.2.2.2 External Stakeholders Besides internal stakeholders, external stakeholders are crucial for university governance. In this context, Jongbloed, Enders, and Salerno (Jongbloed et al., 2008a) introduce the stakeholder categories and groups that provide a thorough picture of actor groups influencing universities and their interactions with the environment (Burrows, 1999; Jongbloed et al., 2008a). In total, they present 12 categories of external stakeholders in more detail: 1. Governing entities encompass state and federal governments, the governing board, the board of trustees, buffer organizations, and sponsoring religious organizations. 2. Administration entails the president, the vice-chancellor, and/or senior administrators. 3. Employees incorporate faculties, administrative staff, and support staff.

44

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

4. Clienteles include students, parents/spouses, tuition reimbursement providers, service partners, employers, and field placement sites. 5. Suppliers involve secondary education providers, alumni, other colleges and universities, food purveyors, insurance companies, utilities, and contracted services. 6. Competitors imply private and public providers of post-secondary education (direct) and distance providers, new ventures (potential) as well as employersponsored training programs (substitutes). 7. Donors incorporate individuals (including trustees, friends, parents, alumni, employees, industry, research councils, foundations). 8. Communities entail neighbors, school systems, social services, chambers of commerce, and special interest groups. 9. Government regulators encompass the ministry of education, buffer organizations, state and federal financial aid agencies, research councils, federal research support, tax authorities, social security, and patent offices. 10. Non-governmental regulators refer to foundations, institutional and programmatic accrediting bodies, professional associations, and church sponsors. 11. Financial intermediaries include banks, fund managers, and analysts. 12. Joint venture partners imply alliances and consortia as well as corporate co-sponsors of research and educational services. With their system of categories, the authors created a systematic order for a very complex environment of stakeholders that provides an external governance framework for universities. It is noticeable that the authors tried to give as complete a picture as possible and defined stakeholders from an economic perspective. This can be seen, for example, in the denomination of students as customers or the denomination of other education providers as suppliers. Their categorization helps define the internal and, above all, external stakeholders of a university in the context of the third mission. The used terms for particular stakeholders, just like customer and supplier, imply an economic understanding that underlies the categorization. This fits in well with the economic understanding of the term third mission (See section 2.1).

2.2.3

Higher Education Policy Reforms in Germany

The following subsection covers two of the most fundamental reforms in Germany’s higher education policy over the past 30 years. A brief look at them is relevant to this thesis since they formed the framework for action in higher

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

45

education governance. Here we refer to the Bologna Reform and the New Public Management Reform (NPM). The Bologna Reform referred primarily to the design of the range of courses offered in the higher education system. The NPM reforms aimed at university administration and its basic procedures. Both reforms created the basis for the quasi-market of higher education and competition among universities.

2.2.3.1 Bologna Reform The Bologna process began in 1999 at the university city of Bologna with a joint declaration signed by European ministers of education to reform national higher education systems and form a common European higher education area. In Germany, the Bologna reform has been carried out jointly by the federal government, the federal states, and higher education institutions. A working group with representatives of the University Rectors’ Conference (HRK), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and the German Accreditation Council accompanies the reform process in the implementation of each step (BMBF, 2017; Nickel, 2011a; Witte, 2006a). The Bologna reforms entailed a catalog of common goals, the establishment of performance criteria, and quality standardization in higher education across the Bologna signatory countries (Witte, 2006a, p. 131). This process has permanently changed the national higher education systems and reformed them in the direction of output orientation, tracing the goal to provide added value to the social and economic system (Enders et al., 2011). It also promoted the concept of “lifelong learning” and was supposed to connect the “European higher education area” and the “European research area.” The core elements of Bologna entailed internationally recognized degrees, the improvement of the quality of degree courses, and the enhancement of employability. Furthermore, “employability” constituted a major educational goal of bachelor studies (undergraduate level). Since then, the undergraduate level has served as “initial training for occupations” (Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Tomlinson, 2012). In the end, the bachelor’s degree was established as the standard qualification track of higher education (KMK, 2017). It should not be forgotten that the professional qualification through a degree has a long tradition in Germany and was, e.g., anchored in relevant laws even before Bologna (Witte, 2006a, p. 161). Another striking feature in connection with Bologna was the cross-sectoral cooperation between higher education institutions, students, and enterprises as well as social sector institutions (BMBF, 2017; HRK, 2017). Bologna aimed to shape a system of comprehensible and comparable degrees on the bachelor and master levels within the participating countries. This resulted in a two-tier structure, distinguishing between bachelor (undergraduate level) and

46

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

master (graduate level) in Germany (Nickel, 2011a; Witte, 2006a). As of today, 48 European states have signed the Bologna declaration and have implemented the related reforms to a large extent (Leisyte et al., 2015). Every two years, the education ministers of the participating states (Bologna Follow-up Group) meet regularly to coordinate goals and priorities (BMBF, 2017; EHEA, 2017; HRK, 2017). In addition, the promotion of study mobility through a universal credit point accumulation system (ECTS) and obligatory transparent transcript of records has been an important goal across all signing countries and was also implemented in Germany (Witte, 2006a, p. 157). Besides that, Bologna introduced and effected a European qualification framework in higher education and secured quality standards on a trans-national level. In Germany, this has been translated into a national qualification framework and forms the design of study programs, which also entails the accreditation of the study programs (Witte, 2006a, p. 201). The new system also enabled universities of applied sciences to offer nearly equal degrees to those awarded by research-oriented universities (Witte, 2006a, p. 195). Teichler (2014) gives an outline for the past application of the general features of Bologna in Germany (Teichler, 2014). To him, a major milestone of the Bologna guidelines in Germany was the implementation of a binding framework for bachelor and master studies containing the following points (Teichler, 2014): 1. The duration of bachelor study programs had to be three to four years with 180 to 240 ECTS credits. 2. The duration of master study programs had to be one to two years with 60 up to 120 ECTS credits. 3. The obligatory modular design of a study program and the ECTS credits accompanying it became a fundamental requirement to the design and shape of study programs and provided a common feature of all study offers. 4. The contents of a module were supposed to be taught within one or two semesters. This included that the total workload each year of studying comprised 1,800 hours.2 To conclude, one can generally say that Bologna has designed the bachelor’s degree to be a first professional qualification at an academic level (Hüther &

2

To illustrate this further: on the undergraduate level, up to 60 credit points can be obtained each year on average; to acquire one credit point, a workload of up to 30 hours has to be carried out.

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

47

Krücken, 2018; Peksen & Zeeman, 2019; Tomlinson, 2012). Also, the modularization of study programs has helped improve their comparability and connectivity in a common higher education area (Witte, 2006a, 2006b). For the argument of the present thesis, it was necessary to briefly describe and underline the role of the bachelor’s degree in Germany from a higher education policy perspective. A labor market orientation further strengthened this with the help of Bologna (the keywords being employability and connectivity). It was also crucial to highlight that the quasi-standardization of higher education degrees through Bologna at the national and transnational levels opened up new profile-raising opportunities for German universities of applied sciences profile (the keywords here being nearly equivalent academic degrees) (Witte, 2006a).

2.2.3.2 New Public Management The German higher education system has experienced several processes of reform during the last three decades. Especially the so-called New Public Management (NPM) has significantly changed higher education governance (Hüther, 2010; Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Schimank & Lange, 2009). The primary purpose of NPM reforms was to arrange the regulatory frame for universities and higher education systems to the extent that objectives could be reached by adhering to the economic principles of efficiency and effectiveness (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. 27). The original governance model of German universities was presented in the literature on higher education governance as a mixed model of strong state regulation and academic self-administration (Braun & Merrien, 1999; Clark, 1983; Hüther & Krücken, 2018). The NPM approach emerged in the early 1980s in the United Kingdom (UK), and its leading ideas and concepts have been transferred to other European countries since then. During the 1990s, Germany eventually adopted the NPM concept to its higher education system little by little, which gave them a reputation of being a “latecomer to NPM” (Schimank & Lange, 2009). As the federal states are responsible for higher education institutions, governments of the federal states introduced new incentive and control mechanisms through NPM (Nickel, 2011b, p. 204). Typical examples in the context of NPM are performance-based funding allocation, lump-sum budgeting, and the design of performance agreements between universities and the federal states. In addition, the NPM model also contains mechanisms such as “quasi-markets,” “competition,” and the strengthening of the “top-management” authorities and “decision-making bodies” of the internal university governance (Jansen et al., 2007; Kleinmann, 2015). In the higher education research literature, this has come to be called “new managerialism” (Deem, 1998). The overarching objective of the NPM concept and its

48

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

principles has been to increase the performance and output of higher education institutions and to allocate public funding according to the economic principles mentioned at the beginning. The following reference makes the main idea of the NPM approach clearer: “There is a concentration on goals of efficiency, value for money and performance” (Ferlie et al., 2008, p. 335). Further, Erhardt (2011) characterized three goals of higher education policy to promote the “new steering model” for higher education institutions in Germany (Erhardt, 2011, pp. 32–34): first, encouraging autonomy of the single higher education institution, second, intensifying competition and third, reinforcing the hierarchy. What should not be ignored as a significant component is that NPM has introduced stakeholder management as an important feature of university governance. Further, higher education policies have promoted strengthening the link between universities and their external stakeholders in steering the activities of the former. This can be seen, for example, in the transformation of universities into “organizational actors.” In Germany, the introduction of university councils and their staffing with external stakeholders illustrates this. (Hüther, 2009, 2010; Krücken, 2017; Krücken & Meier, 2006). What follows is a rise of the influence of external stakeholders on university management in Germany through this. In addition, Jongbloed et al. (2008) also highlighted the idea of the university as a stakeholder organization (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). The German Science Council (2018) even emphasized considering stakeholder interests in high-school governance (Wissenschaftsrat, 2018, p. 6). The following conclusion can be drawn from this: the NPM approach has introduced company-like elements into the university sector, and this resulted in the fact that stakeholder management and external stakeholders have gained importance in university governance (de Boer, Enders, & Leišyt˙e, 2007; de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007; Hüther & Krücken, 2018). In conclusion, the “corporate model”3 has been introduced to the higher education system as a “standard model,” which has been accompanied and fostered by NPM. It can also be concluded that the administrative sector in higher education has undergone standardization and became subject to a jointly binding prototype that formed the basis for strengthening universities as “entrepreneurial organizations” (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2012) and transforming them into “competitive players” (Krücken, 2017; Krücken & Meier, 2006). For the purposes of this thesis, the discussion suggests two main conclusions: first, that universities have transformed themselves through NPM into strategic 3

Further literature on the university as an organization in the sense of a corporate model includes, for example, Wilkesmann (2019), Wilkesmann & Schmid (2012) or Hüther & Krücken (2018) (Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Wilkesmann, 2019; Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2012).

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

49

actors according to the corporate model, and second, that external stakeholders have been given more influence on the governance of universities to face competition.

2.2.4

Differentiation Process of Higher Education in Germany

Germany’s higher education policy reforms aimed to strengthen the higher education system and raise its competitiveness (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 9). At the same time, the reform efforts around the catchwords Bologna and NPM arguably paved the way for further differentiation in Germany’s system of higher education (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a, p. 5). The observation of differentiation processes in the German higher education sector presented itself as highly complex and somewhat confusing. For this thesis, two main streams of those processes as they have been carried out in Germany are presented below: the first concerns the differentiation by type of higher education institution in relation to the national higher education system. The second showcases differentiation within the national higher education system with vertical and horizontal differentiation at the center. Both are briefly described below. The term “differentiation of higher education” refers to the capability of creating differences between the HEIs profiles. These differences are created by higher education systems (macro level), their underlying institutions (meso level), and departments or degree programs (micro level) (Teichler, 2014; Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a). They are carried out through taking strategic action embedded in respective higher education policies. It takes place in the context of universities being strategic actors and their associated competence to meet the needs of society (Enders, 2016; Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a). The profile development based on the teaching and research offerings of the HEIs has been at the core of differentiation. It also has been argued that universities have become strategic actors because they have based their governance on the corporate model (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 30). Differentiation at the national level by type of higher education institution As a prominent example of the differentiation of a national higher education system, Teichler (2014) illustrated the binary differentiation of the German higher education sector, that is, the distinction between research-oriented universities on the one hand and application-oriented universities of applied sciences on the other. This type of

50

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

differentiation was also categorized as differentiation by type of higher education institution (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. 65). According to Teichler (2014), this “binary structuring” took place in transforming the university system away from an elite to a mass system. Within this process, further differentiation can occur (Teichler, 2014). This led to “institutional diversity” in Germany (reflected in the existence of universities, universities of applied sciences, art colleges, music colleges, or colleges of public administration) (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 12). We limit our presentation to the two main types of higher education institutions in Germany, namely traditional research-oriented universities on the one hand and application-oriented universities of applied sciences (UAS) on the other (Teichler, 2014). Building on the “listing principle of higher education legislation,” a profile of the two types of higher education institutions could be determined. In addition, the German Science Council (2010) offered a characterization on research-oriented universities and UAS (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 36). The German Science Council (2010) characterized a research-oriented university as an institutional type marked by offering a large variety of disciplines with a long history, a rich heritage, and centering the capability of further development (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 37). This enables a wide range of academic subjects and a high level of technical depth, both in research and teaching. It also explained the high degree of diversity in academic disciplines. A university can award academic degrees at all levels: bachelor, master, and doctorates (PhD). In terms of doctoral training, the universities in Germany have been granted a privileged position and, as a result, are obligated to train junior scientists and researchers to reach the level of a professorship. Furthermore, the combination of research and teaching, and its relation to each other, has been considered an essential feature. This idea traces back to Humboldt (2019) and his concept of the unity of teaching and research (Humboldt’s educational ideal; von Humboldt, 2019). The master level displays a high research profile. Finally, an emphasis on classroom-based events determines the teaching system. In most cases, lessons take place in large groups. All these characteristics refer to an ideal prototype of a university, albeit variations are possible in practice. In contrast, the German Science Council (2010) characterized a university of applied sciences by generally practice-oriented teaching (and in addition: application-oriented research) and following the idea of the “primacy of teaching” (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 33) (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 40). In addition, a better supervisory relationship (student-professor ratio) determines the profile of a UAS. A higher teaching load of full-time professors, which cover most curricular teaching, commonly reflects this (in contrast to research-oriented universities). Usually, full-time professors are expected to prove their professional as well as

2.2 Germany’s System of Higher Education

51

academic profiles, reflecting practical and scientific experience. The student body of UAS is generally composed of students with an occupational background and stemming from non-academic families. The report emphasized that the mission of a UAS has been and still is the education of professions and not junior researchers. Again, those features describe a general case, and exceptions are possible. Differentiation within the national higher education system Distinctions inside a higher education system can be made at two fundamental levels: in terms of vertical and horizontal differentiation (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. 63). Moreover, science policy issued by governments and responsible ministries at multiple levels has also actively accompanied differentiation processes, e.g., by competitions, initiatives, and funding programs. Two popular examples of vertical differentiation in Germany have been the “Excellence Initiative” and the “Teaching Quality Pact”: The Excellence Initiative aimed to strengthen Germany as a place for research and promoted outstanding projects at specific universities or networks of research institutions (Imboden, 2016; Maassen et al., 2019). The Excellence Initiative was based on a decision of the Federal Government and the federal states (Länder) and implemented by the German Research Foundation in cooperation with the Science Council. It illustrates vertical differentiation by focusing on differentiation among research universities and is therefore essentially a matter of differentiation via the aspects of efficiency and quality with a clear focus on top-level research (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, 2013b). The Teaching Quality Pact was an example of promoting higher education teaching at universities and UAS (Maassen et al., 2019). It aimed to improve the quality of teaching by providing targeted support for measures and initiatives that developed teaching concepts, improved supervision, or increased qualifications of academic staff. Accordingly, this initiative can be credited with supporting vertical differentiation as it differentiates universities through excellence in teaching. Furthermore, internal differentiation can also become a strategic direction when, with the help of the Quality Pact, certain service areas supporting teaching are promoted to contribute to profile building (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, pp. 12–13). In contrast, horizontal differentiation has been characterized in terms of profiles, study programs, or research schools (Hüther & Krücken, 2018, p. 64). It has further been understood as placing a particular task or function in the scope of a single university organization. This follows a concrete societal or economic need tracing the goal of building a profile (Enders, 2016, p. 511). The German Science Council (2013) postulated the formation of the DHBW as an example of horizontal

52

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

differentiation (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). It focused on exclusively providing study programs based on the dual principle (CSPs), which in turn contributed to profilebuilding at regional and national levels. In other words, it supplemented the existing regional (and national) higher education system (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, 2013a). The literature also pointed out that apart from the binary typology, several exceptional cases existed that shaped the German system of higher education (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 42). This might have included the DHBW as this type of university was declared a particular case (Enders, 2016; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). The main reason given for this was that this case had consistently developed from the former concept of vocational academies (Berufsakademien; Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 19). For this thesis, however, we took the position that the DHBW was a development of the UAS in line with a horizontal differentiation as postulated by the German Science Council mentioned above. The reason for this is that this type of university has been given the status of a university of applied sciences. Differentiation as a bridge between two sectors The German Science Council has also argued that the differentiation processes have led to converging practices between research-oriented universities and UAS. At the same time, however, the status rights of the two types of institutions have remained unchanged (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 5). The convergences in the practices of universities and UAS in Germany have been captured and described, for example, with the concepts of “academic drift” and “vocational drift” (Codling & Meek, 2006; Morphew & Huisman, 2002)4 . The former refers to the alignment of a university’s practices with those of a research-oriented university, the latter to the alignment of a university’s practices with those of a practice-oriented university institution. Both phenomena could also be observed in the German higher education system (Morphew & Huisman, 2002, p. 491). Furthermore, tendencies toward an academicization of occupational profiles could be observed in the field of classical vocational training in Germany

4

Codling & Meek (2006) compared practices of two opposing examples of higher education institutions on the basis of selected criteria in a study. They based their analysis on the dualism between traditional research-oriented universities and technical universities. Their study ascertained that traditional research-oriented universities adjusted their practices towards practices of technical universities. Those practices contained applied-oriented research activities as well as research commercialization. This was referred to in the study as “vocational drift” (Codling & Meek, 2006, p. 5). Conversely, technical universities try to be more like traditional research-oriented universities in their practices. This is then referred to as “academic drift.”

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

53

(Deissinger, 2015, p. 556). A popular example of this is the academic drift of the nursing occupation linked to the CSPs (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 37). Also, the award of the UAS status to former vocational academies has been interpreted as academic drift by the German Science Council (2013) referring to CSPs (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 41). In our opinion, the discussion so far leads to two lessons for this thesis: first, CSPs, seen from the perspective of the vocational training sector, could be interpreted as an instrument for the academization of vocational training; second, equipping vocational academies with the status rights of UAS would have represented an academic drift at the institutional level because they have thus become part of the higher education sector in Germany. Consequently, the phenomenon of CSPs could also be understood as part of the differentiation of higher education in Germany through the lens of academic drift. This has also been described and investigated in the literature as building bridges between vocational and academic education (Graf, 2013a; Thies, 2015). In summary, we draw the following conclusions for this thesis: due to the Bologna reform and the demands of a knowledge-based society, the German higher education system has undergone a transformation process. Therefore, universities have been transformed into strategic actors (Krücken, 2017; Krücken & Meier, 2006) with specific profiles through a process of differentiation. In addition, the differentiation process moves in different directions. The case study of the DHBW counts as an example of horizontal differentiation (supplementing the existing higher education system) as well as institutional differentiation (building a new or different type of UAS) (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013; Wissenschaftsrat 2010). The profile feature of CSPs is central to the university’s activities and integral to profile building. In this way, it makes a regionally relevant contribution. Furthermore, it was obvious that the case could show a special path in relation to the process of functional differentiation in the context of the binary structure of the German higher education system. This argument refers to a functional development of the type of a university of applied sciences. In addition, seen from the prospect of the vocational training sector, CSPs can also be interpreted as part of the academic drift phenomenon.

2.3

Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

This section is dedicated to the sector of the universities of applied sciences (UAS) in Germany and provided a relevant context for our dissertation (classification in terms of content). First, we offer a working definition for the term university of applied sciences (UAS). Second, we briefly describe the history of

54

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

UAS in Germany to gain a better understanding of the development of this type of university. Third, we consider the role, function, and purpose of UAS in Germany, followed by an overview of the landscape of UAS in Germany. Fifth, we discuss the connection between UAS and CSPs in Germany to build a bridge to our research on the CSPs.

2.3.1

On Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

In 2018, the German universities of applied sciences (UAS) celebrated their 50th anniversary. In recent years, this type of university has been called a success story (Lackner, 2018; Niederdrenk, 2013). Yet, despite having attracted the attention of higher education scholars, this type of HEI has generally remained underrepresented in higher education research literature (Lackner, 2018, p. 50)—in other words, the UAS sector has been left understudied (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 12). This section begins with a brief historical outline to understand the motivation behind this type of university in Germany, followed by a closer look at the role and function of UAS in today’s German higher education system. Then, a descriptive presentation of current statistics on the topic gives an idea of the size of the UAS, concluded by discussing the links between UAS and CSPs. Defining the type of institution clarifies the nature of the type of higher education institution. Seeber’s definition covered the essential aspects of a UAS: “Organizations formally recognized as higher education institutions, whose main activity is to provide tertiary education with a focus on professional and vocational education, possibly research active but no right to award doctoral degrees.” (Seeber, 2016, p. 1) The definition covers the application and professional relevance of academic education as well as the aspect of application-oriented research. The differentiation from a research-oriented university is evident in the fact that a UAS does not possess the right to award doctorates and, therefore, cannot train young scientists independently. In conclusion, it is the legal-formal position that mainly reflects the difference between a UAS and a research-oriented university. Next, we specify the position of the UAS in the German higher education system more precisely. Already a quantitative perspective makes them stand out. Remarkably, UAS are by far the largest group of all types of higher education institutions in Germany, measured by the number of existing institutions (see Table 2.3). This suggests that UAS are firmly established in the German HE system (Lackner, 2016, p. 135). This also means that UAS are present throughout Germany and have opened up rural areas as well as conurbations.

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany Tab. 2.3 Number of universities in Germany

55

Type of university

Number

Total number of universities

425

Universities of applied sciences

215

Universities

106

Art colleges

52

Administrative colleges

30

Theological universities

16

Universities of education

6

Note. Based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 6.

The UAS were not exclusively teaching-only institutions but were subject to further development due to the differentiation movements in the German higher education system and the underlying reforms (e.g., Bologna, NPM). We remember that a convergence movement also took place in the German higher education system. For UAS, this meant, for example, that they oriented their operations and practices towards an imitation of the best research-oriented universities (Enders, 2016, p. 504). The fact that higher education policy still repeatedly calls for strengthening application-oriented research at UAS by improving their basic equipment reflects that (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b). We addressed the topic in the subsection on differentiation processes in the German higher education system. The phenomenon also applies to the universities of applied sciences and can be seen, for example, in the possibility of being able to train doctoral students under certain conditions. The federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia recently opened up a path in this respect. The Bologna reform and the resulting process of differentiation were cited as causes for convergence. Since Bologna, all types of higher education institutions have been awarding bachelor’s and master’s degrees without differentiating the type of degree according to the type of institution granting it (Jingmin et al., 2018, p. 8). Further, the phenomenon of academic drift also applies to UAS (Ziegele et al., 2016, p. 162). It manifests, for example, in the idea that UAS produce and exploit knowledge in networks (innovation networks, knowledge clusters) (Roessler, 2016). This becomes prominent where research activities in the university sector serve to enhance the institution’s reputation and not teaching. Consequently, in the higher education sector, institutions with teaching as their primary focus have not been recognized as genuinely equivalent. To counteract this, the UAS have

56

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

been examined by higher education scholars to see what an alternative measurement and reputation model might look like and have developed a corresponding proposal (Duong et al., 2016a).

2.3.2

Brief Outline of the Development History of UAS

In the 1960s, further differentiation of the national higher education system became an issue on the policy agenda. A series of complex social developments and the resulting needs preceded this. Additionally, an “educational crisis” was taking place in Germany, resulting in a rising demand for higher education. The capacities of traditional universities were not able to meet this demand. At that time, the formula “access to education for everyone” of “equal opportunities” shaped higher education policy (Holuscha, 2012, p. 50). This development constitutes a crucial reference point in the transformation of the educational system from an “elite system” to a “mass system.” Consequently, the expansion of higher education was a response to increased educational demand. An acceleration in the mechanization of the economy and a need for scientifically trained specialists accompanied it. Furthermore, the composition of the student body at universities had become more heterogeneous, and public funding for a growing higher education system would soon reach a limit for governments. In this context, universities of applied sciences were established in 1968 in Germany (Lackner, 2016; Teichler, 2014). In addition, vocational schools for engineers and business administration wanted to improve their status to be recognized as institutions of tertiary education (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 25). In 1968, the conference of prime ministers of the federal states took place and established the legal framework for establishing the “Fachhochschulsektor” (university of applied sciences sector). An agreement between the federal states at that time constitutes the birth certificate for the “Fachhochschulen” (Lackner, 2016, p. 136). Since then, “Fachhochschulen” have been governed by the federal states, which formally describe higher education institutions in their state’s Higher Education Acts. The result was a heterogeneous regulatory landscape for “Fachhochschulen.” One can conclude that the federal state governments established this new type of higher education institution to contribute to the process of higher education’s massification. Furthermore, the legal establishment of “Fachhochschulen” provided a point of departure for the “differentiation process” within the German system of higher education with two types of higher education institutions (Enders, 2016, p. 504).

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

57

Historically, the term “Fachhochschule” can be traced back to the transformation of the former vocational business and engineering schools into “Fachhochschulen.” However, since the implementation of the Bologna reform, the term “Fachhochschule” is considered obsolete, and this type of university is referred to in English as “university of applied sciences” (Lackner, 2016, p. 137). Hence, “Fachochschulen” are known today as “universities of applied sciences” (UAS). This type of higher education institution is comparable, for example, to “technical colleges” or “polytechnics” in Great Britain. The main idea behind the educational mission of “Fachhochschulen” was to establish an application-oriented education for professions along with a shorter duration of studies (Holuscha, 2012, p. 10). Initially, no research contract was part of their profile. In addition, the federal states intended to establish a less expensive institutional alternative to traditional universities to deal with the challenges of those times. Moreover, the growing demand for higher education resulted from large birth-cohorts, a circumstance that led to the opening decision of higher education policy in 1977 as the next stage of expansion. In the further course of this development, the universities of applied sciences succeeded in obtaining a legally sanctioned research contract. The amendment of the German Higher Education Framework Act (Hochschulrahmengesetz) in the year 1985 established “applied research” for universities of applied sciences as the “second mission” alongside teaching as the “first mission.” The early 1990s saw further expansion (for example, in the context of the reunification of Germany, a whole series of universities of applied sciences have been added) in the context of the German reunion (Enders, 2016, pp. 505–507). Holuscha (2012) provided a closer look into the history and development of universities of applied sciences as their own type of university. In her research, she investigated the genesis and the development trajectory of this specific type of university in Germany (Holuscha, 2012). In doing that, she used the case of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. According to her, four major points need to be addressed to get a better understanding of the main ideas behind UAS: 1. UAS were not exactly a recent invention of higher education policy. Rather, UAS were, in retrospect, a consecutive step forward. This new type of university was established based on the previously independent educational institutions, such as former schools of engineering or commercial colleges (Holuscha, 2012, p. 50). 2. The 1968 federal agreement on harmonizing the “Fachhochschulsektor” is a fundamental document for all following developments of UAS (Holuscha,

58

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

2012, p. 69). The Federal Ministries of Education and the Arts bear the responsibility for legal adaptations in their state, reflecting German federalism. It is remarkable that federal ministers did not want to grant “Fachhochschulen” equal status of self-government or autonomy comparable to universities during the initial phase. This has to do with the benchmark of the higher education system: by state law, traditional universities are granted a high degree of autonomy (Holuscha, 2012, p. 73). As a result, the federal ministries took on a role comparable to a superior education authority for universities of applied sciences. 3. A whole series of events triggered the foundation of UAS. These included the so-called “Sputnik Shock,” which caused an upgrade and expansion of academia in the western world, and the German education crisis (according to Picht) provided a justification for needed reforms and was encouraged by Dahrendorf’s plea of “education as civil right” (Holuscha, 2012, p. 78). 4. Based on an exploration of legal texts and policy documents, Holuscha (2012) concludes that to a large extent, UAS have possessed a self-determined position within the educational landscape. Further tasks and goals of this type of university were obtained step by step in the developments steered by higher education policy (Holuscha, 2012, p. 93). The following quote summarizes the main idea behind the emergence of universities of applied sciences and closes this section: “Universities of applied sciences were introduced in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s as a new organizational form at higher education level that focuses on more practical studies in fields such as economics, engineering, social work, and health.” (Graf, 2013a, p. 93) Graf (2013) pointed out some additional reasons behind the establishment of UAS in contrast to “vocational academies,” which were established during the same time. He argued that in the process of “upgrading” former engineering schools and business schools to UAS, the “vocational academies” emerged as a consequence or as a kind of by-product of the development (Graf, 2013a, pp. 102–103). This is an important point because the predecessor institution of our case study DHBW, the vocational academy (Berufsakademie) BadenWuerttemberg, was once created in this context (please refer to the section on CSPs for more detail).

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

2.3.3

59

Function, Role, and Purpose of UAS

The following section briefly describes the typical characteristics, roles, and functions of a UAS, especially at the meso and micro levels. To begin with, a UAS can be briefly characterized and defined according to the higher education researcher Teichler (2014) as featuring four main characteristics (Teichler, 2014): first, study programs focus on practice; second, university can be accessed by different pathways (e.g., occupational levels); third, even before Bologna the duration of studies was short; and fourth, a university of applied sciences holds no right to grant doctorates. Other characteristics identified by the German Science Council (2010) are the so-called “location-dependent development pathways” (translated from German into English by the author) of UAS in their regional area (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 6). In this context, “profile building” has been an important feature that connects to the levels of the federal state (Bundesland) and the respective higher education institution (meso level). Consequently, every higher education institution has the option to build regional networks, collaborations, and structures based on a division of labor. Furthermore, the German Science Council advised UAS to provide suitable programs for specific occupations (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a). Consequently, the teaching mission is central for this type of university. It has been argued that the knowledge-based society and economy need graduates with wide-ranging knowledge and skills to be able to apply scientific insights to occupational practice (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 18). The role of UAS expresses this demand: “Universities of applied sciences have been assigned a special role by tuning their educational provision to the requirements and needs of the world of work.” (de Weert, 2011, p. 103) The regional roots of the UAS suggest a connection to the regional economy, higher education, and application-oriented research (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 36). In addition, an orientation towards the economy has been deemed a general trend in higher education. Hence, UAS carry out activities in close interaction with enterprises in their applied research. This results in contract research, regional cooperation, and technology transfer activities which have been part of the DNA of UAS (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 4). Due to their presence in the area, these types of HE institutions are usually the only providers of higher education in a region, a fact reflected in the regional importance of UAS. Thus, UAS contribute to retaining skilled workers in the respective regions (Lackner, 2016, p. 154). The UAS also support the political goal of equal opportunities. The student profile of UAS exemplifies this, as it features students with a vocational

60

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

baccalaureate education (Fachabitur) as well as those who followed a second or third path to tertiary education (zweiter/dritter Bildungsweg) (Holuscha, 2012, p. 10). The Science Council argued in a 2013 position paper on the prospects of the German science system that higher education institutions are a social place (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b). Within them, a broad disciplinary range of education, research, knowledge transfer, and cultural self-perception are interwoven with each other. Higher education institutions form a direct link to and effect on society via academic teaching (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 28). This notion emphasizes the systemic function of higher education institutions and carries out aspects of a nexus between teaching and the third mission. Thus, it can be argued that through their presence in the regions (meso level) and the networking of professors in those regions (micro level), the UAS have a very significant and obvious role in the implementation of third mission strategies. In the sense of a “micro-level prototype,” we take up a series of typical features of a UAS on the operational level. First and foremost, professors at UAS play a key role in fulfilling the institutions’ mission consisting of activities in practice-oriented teaching, applied research, and technology transfer. Furthermore, professorships at UAS follow a more practice-oriented career pathway, and activities in applied research lean towards a more voluntary basis (Teichler, 2014). This indicates a particular competence profile for a professor at a UAS, a so-called “triple qualification.” It constitutes a prerequisite for employment (Lackner, 2016, p. 147) and implies an extraordinary ability to work independently (proven by an above-average dissertation), practical experience outside the university sector (three to five years), and, finally, a didactic pedagogical suitability for academic teaching. The competence profile is deemed a constitutive characteristic of a UAS (Lackner, 2018, p. 158). Hence, professors play a significant role in shaping this type of university. In addition, the privilege of academic freedom also applies to professors at universities of applied sciences (Lackner, 2016, p. 148), and the remuneration amounts to the W2 salary grade (German salary system for professors in which the W2 level is the standard pay for professors at a university of applied sciences). Moreover, a professor is allowed to take on sideline activities (or secondary jobs; German term: Nebentätigkeiten) such as consulting, development, or the implementation of technologies within their personal networks.

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

61

Second, UAS have been characterized by the “primacy of teaching,” which is reflected in the comparatively high teaching load for professors there (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 33). Consequently, the teaching obligation is 18 semester hours per week, twice as much as for a university professor (nine semester hours per week). Third, the organization and implementation of teaching have been shaped by the “small group principle,” with 30–40 students per cohort. Since this form of teaching has been marked by interaction, dialogue, and theory-practice transfer, the practice of the small group principle implies an excellent supervision ratio for students (Lackner, 2016, p. 152). This also seems to contribute to shorter study periods and lower failure rates overall. Fourth, the use of external lecturers from corporate practice has proven its worth, even though full-time professors cover teaching almost entirely. The learning objective of a study program at a UAS is to impart academic knowledge with application relevance. Therefore, it can be concluded that practical relevance forms an essential characteristic of the UAS profile of study programs, also reflected in the interdisciplinary design of the study programs. Fifth, the subject distribution of the study programs at the UAS mainly covers the academic disciplines of engineering, business administration, computer science, social professions, and health care professions (Lackner, 2018, p. 162). The academic disciplines mentioned can be taught in a very application-oriented way. Thus, it can be concluded that UAS teach students in a very interdisciplinary way applied and practical problem-solving and innovation skills on a scientific basis (Lackner, 2018, p. 156). Finally, application-oriented research and transfer are also vital missions of German UAS. “The close dialogue and partnership-based cooperation in networks between universities of applied sciences, companies, state institutions and other social actors in the region is the actual core of the application orientation.” (Lackner, 2018, pp. 155–156)

2.3.4

Landscape of UAS in Germany

The following section briefly presents some facts and figures involving UAS and intends to provide an understanding of their size and significance. Over ten years (2008/2009 to 2018/2019), the number of students (bachelor and master) in Germany has increased by over 800,000. This represents an increase of 40 percent compared to the reference year 2008/2009. It is striking that the UAS account for a share of more than 400,000 students. As a result,

62

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

universities of applied sciences have contributed about half of the growth in student numbers. Consequently, the UAS sector has grown by about 40 percent over ten years (compared to the number of the year 2008/2009). As a result, the UAS could increase their total share of students by over five percent. This means that more than one-third of the students are now enrolled at a UAS (see Table 2.4). Thus, this sector is an essential and highly relevant pillar of the German education system. Tab. 2.4 Development of student numbers Student numbers

In total

Universities

Universities of applied sciences

Share of universities of applied sciences in percent

Study year 2008/2009 (winter term)

2.025.742

1.365.927

600.568

29,6%

Study year 2018/2019 (winter term)

2.868.222

1.781.008

1.001.550

34,9%

Note. Author’s representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 7.

A look at the number of first-year students also confirms the growth path of UAS within the university system. Table 2.5 shows the number of first-year students and how it has changed over ten years: Tab. 2.5 Development of first-year student numbers First-year student numbers

In total

Universities

Universities of applied sciences

Share of universities of applied sciences in percent

Study year 2008/2009 (winter term)

385.508

231.924

134.157

34,8%

Study year 2018/2019 (winter term)

435.731

248.000

165.567

37,9%

Note. Author’s representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, pp. 14, 15.

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

63

According to Hüning et al. (2017), the area of non-state (private-owned) and state (public-owned) UAS grew very strongly in the period from 1990 to 2016. The number of new locations and sublocations for these types of higher education institutions also reflects this (Hüning et al., 2017, p. 11). Among the public-owned UAS, the year 2009 deserves special mention: a salient number of universities of applied sciences (or locations) were founded in North Rhine-Westphalia that year. In addition, the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University (DHBW) was founded in Baden-Wuerttemberg, with its headquarters in Stuttgart and subsites (campuses) spread throughout the federal state, embodying the concept of a “multi-campus university.” According to Hüning et al. (2017), this also echoes the development of the education system away from an “elite system” towards a “mass system”: “In 2016, no postal code area in Germany was further away than 59 kilometers (radius) from the next university campus, allowing every prospective student to reach a higher education institution or a satellite campus within approximately one hour.” (Hüning et al., 2017, p. 3) From this, the authors conclude that higher education is becoming the norm, and UAS make a decisive contribution in this respect (Hüning et al., 2017, p. 29). The following table illustrates the regional distribution of UAS based on the numbers provided by the Federal Statistical Office (2020); in addition, the distribution among the three biggest federal states is outlined as a supplement. Hence, Table 2.6 shows the number of UAS and their distribution among the federal states with the highest number of UAS (statistical facts include both public-owned and private-owned universities of applied sciences): Tab. 2.6 Statistics of the top 3 federal states with the most universities and universities of applied sciences Type of university

Germany in total

Number in the respective state North Rhine-Westphalia

Bavaria

Baden-Wuerttemberg

University

106

16

12

12

University of applied sciences

215

36

24

41

Note. Author’s representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 6.

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, there are about twice as many UAS in Germany as universities. The figures of the Federal Statistical Office

64

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

(2020) also show that Baden-Wuerttemberg is the federal state with the most UAS, followed by the federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria. The numbers take into account that private universities with the status of university of applied sciences are also included in the statistics. Tab. 2.7 Distribution of the number of students at universities of applied sciences among the top 3 federal states Student numbers

Germany in total

Universities Number in the respective state of applied North Bavaria Baden-Wuerttemberg sciences Rhine-Westphalia

Study year 2.868.222 1.001.550 2018/2019 (winter term)

257.624

138.408 151.138

Note. Author’s representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, p. 9.

When it comes to the distribution of total student numbers among UAS, the federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Bavaria again occupy top positions (see Table 2.7). North Rhine-Westphalia takes first place by far, followed by the federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg (second place) and Bavaria (third place). In 2018, approximately 48,000 professors were employed at all universities in Germany. Of these, 41.6 percent worked at UAS (see Table 2.8). Tab. 2.8 Number of professors at universities of applied sciences University staff

In total

University

University of applied sciences

Share of universities of applied sciences in percent

Number of professors (2018)

48.128

24.683

20.035

41,6%

Note. Author’s representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019, p. 34.

Finally, this subsection briefly describes the statistical distribution of subjects and the academic disciplines behind them at UAS. It has already been mentioned that UAS mainly provide education in engineering, business administration, computer science, social professions, and health care professions (Lackner, 2018, p. 162) (see Table 2.9):

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

65

Tab. 2.9 Most important study programs of universities of applied sciences and distribution across academic disciplines Academic discipline

Number of students at a university of applied sciences

Percentage of the total number of students of universities of applied sciences (1.026.719 students)

1

Economics (including business administration and management)

249.151

24,27%

2

Engineering

107.567

10,48%

3

Computer Science

99.843

9,72%

4

Social Work

76.456

7,45%

5

Health Sciences

53.826

5,24%

Note. Representation adapted from Lackner, 2018, p. 163.

To summarize, UAS have had to cope with enormous growth over the past ten years and have thus contributed to the growth of the higher education sector. In addition, there are almost twice as many UAS as there are universities, and the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has the most UAS (public and private combined). According to Hüning et al. (2017), a university can be reached in Germany within an approximate radius of 60 kilometers (Hüning et al., 2017). The UAS have made a significant contribution to this development, with privately funded UAS sciences making the largest contribution. The by far highest number of students at UAS can be found in North Rhine-Westphalia. It is conspicuous (statistically speaking) that the supervision ratio at UAS is worse than at universities. The following section explores how UAS and the concept of CSPs are related.

2.3.5

The Link Between UAS and CSPs

The following section discusses the connection between UAS and CSPs. It is relevant for the present thesis to understand this link because CSPs are a special kind of study program with a high practical orientation and developed initially outside the field of UAS (see the section on CSPs). We have already established that a high degree of regional orientation and application orientation in teaching and research characterizes UAS. Consequently, UAS can be seen as “training centers for the regional economy,” preparing young

66

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

people for the regional industry. This idea is also proposed by the German Science Council (2010): academic teaching is at the center of UAS activities. Therefore, UAS have been perceived as an appropriate academic educational body for professional training (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b, p. 37). Consequently, this perception leads us to the CSPs linking professional training with academic studies in one study concept. And the UAS, with their special profile of practice-oriented higher education, are the appropriate sponsoring institutions for the CSPs. A particular type of study program that is highly practice-oriented is known as a cooperative study program, where studies and training alternate between UAS and industry. They are seen as particularly relevant to the portfolio of courses offered by UAS due to their practice-oriented academic teaching profile (Lackner, 2016, p. 144). Hence, a broad spectrum of CSPs (and different types of them) are included in the offers of UAS. The study concept of cooperative higher education, which combines practical training at the workplace with academic studies at university (more details on CSPs are discussed in the following section), suggests a suitable study program concept for UAS. In addition, CSPs were denoted as part of the “differentiation process” within the higher education system and underline the importance of the study concept to promote process (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 40). At this point, we repeat that the differentiation strategy in higher education can occur at the institutional level (meso level) or at the level of a study program (micro level) to develop a profile in the competition between universities. Arguably, CSPs are thus an object of the differentiation strategy: either they are placed at the center of a university’s activities at the institutional level (meso level) or form part of the offer in a field of study (micro level). In the case of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the DHBW can be seen as an example of a differentiation strategy at the institutional level (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 26). As an example of a differentiation strategy at the micro level, the case of the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia may be used (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 85). From a strategic perspective, CSPs are seen as links or bridges connecting two originally separate sectors. These are the higher education sector on the one hand and the vocational training sector on the other. In Germany, these are two separate systems. Thus, study programs in cooperative higher education form a kind of transition area to the sector of vocational education and further education on occupations (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a, p. 41). In addition, the establishment of CSPs at UAS shows that new pedagogical approaches are successfully integrated into the daily business of higher education institutions (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a,

2.3 Characterization of Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany

67

p. 46). Consequently, CSPs link the higher education institutions and the enterprise (FPO and) as places of learning, which will also have implications on the university as an organization (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a, p. 49). Since CSPs can be classified as an instrument in the process of differentiation, it can be concluded that they can be used “to deepen the practice-oriented profile” of a university in general and a UAS in particular. Graf (2013) pointed out that UAS can utilize the concept of cooperative higher education to sharpen and deepen a practice-oriented profile: “In this sense, the diffusion of the dual study principle into universities of applied sciences serves to partially convert those back to more practice orientation.” (Graf, 2013a, p. 111). This echoes the debate on academic drift and vocational drift presented in the previous section. From the core statement of the above quote, we can conclude that CSPs can be an effective concept to counteract academic drift or, vice versa, to strengthen vocational drift. Referring back to the argument that CSPs represent an important strategic component for UAS in the context of the differentiation process, the regional aspect of UAS should be highlighted in the context of the third mission: “It is expected that the region will gain importance as a dimension of differentiation so that corresponding cooperation and alliances of varying intensity will play an important role in structuring the higher education landscape in the future.” (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010a, p. 40). Consequently, CSPs can also be seen in the context of the argumentation around application orientation and its location in regional networks. CSPs can be developed and implemented from these networks. The UAS, with its focus on teaching and the particular competence profile of its professors, provides ideal structural conditions. The following quotation illustrates the idea behind this: “Dual study programs tend to be established from the bottom up through regional initiatives by firms and, for example, a local university of applied sciences” (Graf, 2013a, p. 100). Hence, we concluded that UAS and CSPs as study concepts match well. Together with the regional orientation of UAS, they provide a strategic condition to fulfill the mission as an “academic training body” for the needs of the world of work. Further, CSPs are seen as a recipe to counteract the academic drift and to strengthen the practice orientation in the profile of a UAS. In addition, UAS offer ideal structural conditions for establishing CSPs. This assumption is based on the particular profile of the UAS professorship and its networks, as well as the regional presence of this type of university.

68

2.4

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

This section presents and discusses the niche area of CSPs in Germany and served as an in-depth context for the focus of our research. It first briefly describes the phenomenon of CSPs. Second, it looks into the history of CSPs to better understand how and in what context CSPs were created and what constitutes this type of study program. Third, it suggests a definition of CSPs for this thesis. Fourth, it maps out a current picture of the CSP landscape in Germany using qualitative and quantitative figures. Fifth, it presents concluding remarks based on our literature analysis to complete the in-depth context on CSPs in this thesis.

2.4.1

On CSPs in Germany

The previous section described the connection between UAS and CSPs. The CSPs are a special form of practice-oriented study formats and form a separate subsector in Germany’s HE; they also constituted the empirical case for this dissertation. For this reason, it has been imperative to feature a separate subsection on CSPs, which could sharpen the understanding of this field for this thesis. CSPs have been defined as a “hybrid form of education,” as they combine academic education with vocational training (Krone, 2015a; Krone et al., 2019). The CSPs also have a long tradition in Germany and initially started outside the tertiary sector (Wolter, 2016, p. 39). The landscape of CSPs in Germany is characterized by regional differences due to the federal system where the state legislators (regional level) seem to make creative use of their leeway through laws and ordinances. In addition, the economic situation within a federal state seems to have an influence (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 3). It can be postulated that CSPs cover a wide range of study programs and formats. An essential feature of CSPs is seen in a systematic interlinkage of learning locations, namely the university campus on the one hand and the workplace in a company on the other (Krone, 2015a; Krone et al., 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2010b). This brings out the basic idea behind the concept, namely a specific connection of the academic world with the world of work. It implies a close form of cooperation between the university and companies, which has been deemed to be very demanding and complex in its implementation (Krone, 2015a; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019). Furthermore, CSPs have been systematically developed over time and have seen a continuous increase in student numbers (Kamm et al., 2016, p. 117). The concept was transferred from Baden-Wuerttemberg to other federal states and

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

69

also received a high level of international attention (Brünner et al., 2016; Krone, 2015a): CSPs based on the German model have can be found in China (Zhang, 2016) or South America (Graf et al., 2014), for example. In the following brief literature review on CSPs in Germany, we draw an up-todate picture of the state of knowledge on this particular form of higher education. The German Science Council (2013) argued that educational research and higher education research on CSPs has remained limited, including a lack of data and heterogeneity of offered definitions (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 11). Further, the German Science Council (2013) postulated that the growth of CSPs had been a significant part of the comprehensive process of differentiation within the tertiary system of Germany. In this context, the German Science Council (2013) has identified two aspects (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 40): first, the CSPs function as an instrument of differentiation at the program level of HEIs to sharpen and shape their profile, and second, CSPs function as an instrument of institutional transformation towards a specific type of UAS (institutional level; as it is the case in our thesis with DHBW). For the latter case, it was argued that this would require reshaping governance structures towards the university sector, including a different shape of teaching staff, research-oriented infrastructure, and a more scientific character of the underlying study programs. For the present thesis, we learned that CSPs are firmly anchored in the differentiation debate in the German higher education system. Consequently, CSPs have been utilized to develop a profile in higher education at both the institutional and the program levels. Graf (2013) also identified CSPs as a sector-connecting format in his dissertation. The background: in Germany, the sectors of vocational training and higher education are separate, and each sector obeys its own laws (Graf, 2013a, p. 103). In addition, Graf (2013) postulated that CSPs might be a solution for small and medium-sized enterprises to solve a shortage of specialists and engineers. Thus, CSPs connect rules, norms, and mission statements from separated spheres with regard to curricula, teaching personnel, and funding. Therefore, CSPs have been classified as a “hybrid form of organization,” and this hybrid form provides a new form of institutional porosity (Graf, 2013a, p. 191). Complementary, it has been noticeable that CSPs were also identified as a field of experimentation for new forms of organization. Graf (2012) illustrated this perspective: “While attempts at reform in the established fields of vocational and higher education usually meet with resistance from one or more interest groups, dual courses of study currently offer a testing ground for organizational innovation.” (Graf, 2012, p. 51). The following aspects were carried over for the present research: first, CSPs were categorized as a hybrid format, which gave them a unifying role in higher education. Therefore, it could be assumed that CSPs also serve to open up new target

70

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

groups and bring them into higher education. Furthermore, CSPs seemed to offer a space for trying out new organizational formats. It could therefore be assumed that they were also used in higher education practice. Krone (2015) has argued that academic interest concerning cooperative higher education has grown, and scientific papers differ about the federal states, subjects, and types of higher education institutions (Krone, 2015a). Further, there have been grave differences in research findings because research draws on regional characteristics, which are not always comparable. But these findings might also have indicated the effectiveness and efficiency of different governance approaches (Krone, 2015a). Further, Krone (2015) rooted CSPs in three major streams of higher education policy discussions: first, Bologna and the idea of employability, which applies for CSPs as well, second, CSPs contributed to academic drift through an increase of student numbers in the context of the OECD cross-country comparison in Germany and third, CSPs were seen as part of the differentiation of higher education in Germany. For this thesis, two themes could be extracted from Krone’s (2015) argumentation: regional contexts had to be taken into account in the research and CSPs had to be seen in the light of the debate on differentiation in higher education in which they served as an instrument to expand the number of students. Thies (2015) noticed a growing overlap in both dual VET and academic education. Although niche since the 1970s, CSPs have been perceived as a success in many ways (Thies, 2015, p. 2). The great satisfaction on the side of engaged enterprises as well as enrolled students and the excellent employment outlook support this. However, Thies (2015) argued that the education infrastructure of CSPs in Germany has been very heterogeneous with regard to quality and offered study programs. However, despite this, CSPs have been firmly established in people’s educational choices and the personnel planning of enterprises in Germany (Thies, 2015, p. 11). Two insights are relevant at this point: CSPs were (and are) a very recognized concept among the target groups of students and companies—despite their niche existence—and the landscape of CSPs was and is very heterogeneous, which needs to be taken into account for conducting research. Brünner et al. (2016) postulated in a research article that CSPs that were based on the “Stuttgart model” have been responsible for the emergence and spread of these types of study programs in Germany (Brünner et al., 2016, p. 74). Further, the authors highlighted that the success of the original model of CSPs seemed to be partly responsible for the institutionalization of these programs in Germany (Brünner et al., 2016, p. 75). These findings supported the case selection for this thesis and base the research process on the original model of CSPs in Germany.

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

71

Fasshauer & Severing (2016) emphasized that the current state of research on CSPs shows a lack of conceptual clarity resulting in an insufficient data situation. Therefore, the authors stated that the dynamic development of cooperative higher education needs to be seen in a nuanced light (Faßhauer & Severing, 2016, p. 10). For this thesis, we concluded that it was important to take a closer look at the individual case and its contextual conditions. The working paper by Mordhost & Nickel (2019), published about the CHE, presented for the first time an analysis of the CSPs in the federal states and a comparison of the CSP models between the federal states. The authors applied a longitudinal study and examined the respective structure of the CSPs as well as the legal framework in each federal state. The findings of this study were helpful for our thesis insofar as they provided concrete clues for the positioning of our case in the German CSP landscape. The findings showed that BadenWuerttemberg still holds an exceptional position in the field of CSPs compared to the rest of Germany, but that other federal states are catching up (e.g., Saarland) (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 132). The authors concluded that CSPs in Germany would still be an “exclusive area” (measured by the number of students nationwide) despite their considerable growth. Furthermore, they also linked the growth to the employer because it would largely depend on the companies in the regions and their willingness to cooperate. This, in turn, would also strongly depend on their economic situation and thus the economic power of a region (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, pp. 150–151).

2.4.2

Brief Development History of CSPs

This subsection considers the development history of CSPs. It provides a broader context for the emergence of CSPs in this thesis to contribute to a more holistic understanding of the main ideas behind this study concept. Motivation for the Development of CSPs One of the motivations for the emergence of CSPs and the resulting foundation of a university of cooperative education in Baden-Wuerttemberg could be found in the considerations that spurred developments in federal education policy. In the early 1970s, young people increasingly aimed to attend universities, yet the capacities were not sufficient. At the same time, the industry needed highly qualified workers, which the universities alone could not provide (Berthold et al., 2009, p. 53). Further, the industry was dissatisfied with the quality of the graduates from universities (academic drift) due to the lack of practical experience of university graduates

72

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

(Wolter, 2016, p. 40). This led, among other things, to the establishment of the UAS in Germany (see chapter on universities of applied sciences) (Graf, 2013b). In the slipstream of the foundation phase of UAS, the universities of cooperative education in Baden-Wuerttemberg were founded almost simultaneously. In addition, the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg guided this process with the adoption of a statute. The statute declared the CSPs to be a model project and provided legal certainty. Furthermore, the state has broken new ground in the governance of universities of cooperative education because it obliged a public institution (higher education institution) and industry to cooperate. The development of the CSPs could be roughly divided into four phases: prefoundation phase, foundation phase, development phase, and transformation- and establishment phase. We have briefly outlined these development steps according to the stages as follows. Pre-foundation phase The so-called “Stuttgart model” of CSPs combined vocational training elements with elements of academic studies and was first tested in Baden-Wuerttemberg in 1972. The initiative was launched due to three regional industrial companies: Daimler-Benz, Bosch and Standard Elektrik Lorenz (Brünner et al., 2016, p. 63). In cooperation with the Württembergische Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungsakademie (VWA) and the Chamber of Industry and Commerce for the central Neckar region (IHK Region Stuttgart), a new educational concept was offered at an academic level. In addition, the first CSP offer was characterized as a “bottom-up project” driven by industry interests (Graf, 2013a, p. 103). These programs promised the prospect of achieving similar career opportunities and earnings as with a regular university degree. However, the duration of studies was much shorter. The combination of vocational training and academic studies took students three years (six semesters) and ended with an officially approved business administration degree (Betriebswirt VWA). The demand from secondary school graduates for the new educational offer was very high (at that time) and therefore, the first test was seen as a great success by the actors involved. Foundation phase The effective start raised the interest of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Consequently, the minister of education launched a legislative initiative for the new educational concept, which resulted in the establishment of two vocational academies (Berufsakademien), with more to follow if successful. On October 1, 1974, CSPs with 164 enrolled students in the vocational academies in Stuttgart and Mannheim commenced. (From here on, we use the term “universities of cooperative

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

73

education” for the term “vocational academies.”) With the universities of cooperative education, the predecessor institution of the DHBW was established, and CSPs were institutionalized under this roof. An education policy consideration from that time was to transfer elements of the proven dual vocational training system to the tertiary sector and thus close a gap5 in the education system (Walitzek-Schmidtko, 2014). Thus, the development of CSPs in Germany is closely linked to the universities of cooperative education and its successor institution, the DHBW (Brünner et al., 2016, p. 75). Development phase (establishment of an additional educational institution in the tertiary sector) In 1982, a separate law—the Act of Universities of Cooperative Education (Gesetz über die Berufsakademien in Baden-Württemberg)—introduced the original concept of CSPs in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The law foresaw that universities of cooperative education combine academic education with practice-oriented training through cooperation between public-funded universities of cooperative education and companies, following the “dual principle” (Zabeck et al., 1995, p. 3). It should be noted that this formulation remains valid to this day and can be found in the Baden-Wuerttemberg Higher Education Act (Landeshochschulgesetz Baden-Württemberg) in the section on the mission of the DHBW. The project’s pilot phase successfully concluded in the early 1980s with the adoption of the Law on Universities of Cooperative Education. The universities of cooperative education were now established as their own type of tertiary educational institution in Baden-Wuerttemberg. It has always been stressed that the universities of cooperative education do not have the same legal status as a university or UAS. Nevertheless, the institution was considered to be part of higher education. Furthermore, the universities of cooperative education as an institution were not vocational schools, therefore not part of the German VET system, and consequently classified as a special path of education policy (Zabeck et al., 1995, p. 4). At that time, the CSPs had the following features (Zabeck et al., 1995, p. 8): 1. The dual principle interlinks two places of training (and learning); that is, it provides a learning experience for the individual in academia and the enterprise.

5

The gap was twofold: firstly, there were not enough places at universities, and secondly, there was no real alternative to studying at university. With the foundation of the University of Cooperative Education, an educational policy response was found.

74

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

2. An obligatory interlinkage of the curriculum with professional training and practical training phases at an enterprise are included in the curriculum. In addition, issues concerning this topic were settled in committees. 3. Binding cooperation between a state-funded institution (university of cooperative education) and regional enterprises has been established. 4. The composition of teaching staff differs and entails regular professors as well as part-time lecturers from practice. 5. CSPs have a high degree of modularization. In addition, employability was another key feature of CSPs in the early years. However, the topic was a taboo subject in the early 1970s (Walitzek-Schmidtko, 2014, p. 8). Again, it is remarkable that more than 20 years later, employability would be an influential policy discourse in German higher education following the Bologna reforms. It should also be highlighted that CSPs were already of a modular shape in their design. This has also been an essential feature of the reforms in the Bologna context. In a further development, Baden-Wuerttemberg’s industry sector accepted the regional educational model of CSPs and gained an excellent reputation in many sectors of the industry (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a; Zabeck et al., 1995). Transformation and establishment phase (the process of becoming a university) In 2009, the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg amended the Higher Education Act and established the DHBW as the successor institution to the universities of cooperative education (Hesser, 2019, p. 13). Furthermore, this type of higher education institution was granted the “legal status of a university of applied sciences” and had the mission to deliver CSPs at bachelor and master levels (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 41). For this, the state government laid out the “dual study model” in great detail in the Higher Education Act (Landeshochschulgesetz) as a separate type of higher education institution (Mill, 2015; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019). It regulates, for example, the university’s organizational structure, the basic duration of the courses of study, the cooperation with companies, their admission as training institutions, the associated rights of participation, and an upper limit for study place capacities. The regulations are sometimes very detailed but are then limited to one type of university (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, pp. 147–148).

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

2.4.3

75

Important Definitions of CSPs

This subsection clarifies what is to be understood under the term “dual” in Germany and provides a structural and educational definition of the term “cooperative study program.” For the purpose of this thesis, it has been important to have recorded these issues in one subsection because this reflected our understanding of CSPs in the light of our research. Clarification of the term “dual” The conceptualization of CSPs required clear terminology. In German, these types of programs are called “dual,” thus the object of our study has often been directly translated as “dual courses of study” from German into English. To explore and explain this translation, it is helpful to take a closer look at the country’s vocational education and training system (VET). Initial German VET combines training at the workplace with vocational schooling. As such, the practical training part takes place in a FPO or NPO, and the vocational schooling takes place in a public or private vocational school (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 7). This cooperation is obligatory and determined by the Vocational Training Act (Berufsbildungsgesetz, BBiG). The law was first adopted in 1969 and amended in 2005 and 2020 by the federal government. Vocational training, as described above, takes place at two places of learning, and it is this characteristic of training that is understood in Germany as dual. Thus, the term “dual” means the combination of two places of learning. However, another, more important, core element of dual studies is the aspect of cooperation between institutions or organizations from two (or more) sectors. Usually, this takes place between a public-funded university (state sector) and a company (industry sector). For this reason, the term “cooperation” is more useful when translating the term “dual studies” from German into English. Thus, in this thesis, the term “cooperative study programs” (CSPs) prevails. Structural definition for the term cooperative study programs (CSPs) In the course of this thesis, we have already described what is meant by CSPs. However, we have not yet provided a concrete definition, which we will do at this point. Based on the literature, we have reviewed a plethora of definitions of CSPs and have selected one for this thesis. The decisive selection criterion was to cover as broad a spectrum of characteristics of CSPs as possible. Krone (2015) defines CSPs as follows: In general, the term cooperative study program is understood as the temporal and content-related combination of vocational training or practical phases with a regular

76

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

university course of study. The main characteristic of CSPs is that there are usually several places of learning, firstly the training company and secondly the university. (Krone, 2015a)

The definition of Krone (2015) contains different dimensions of these programs: time, content, and place. Firstly, the time dimension refers to the total duration of a study program and its individual sections in an alternation of temporal phases. Secondly, the content dimension refers to the teaching and learning content within the study program. Thirdly, the place dimension refers to a learning venue that alternates between the seminar room at university and the training facility at the premises of an enterprise. In addition, the definition reflects the interrelation and interdependence of the dimensions, suggesting that this definition entails a particular need for coordination. In turn, this implies a mandatory requirement for cooperation. Hence, we rely on the definition of Krone (2015) for the purpose of this study (see Figure 2.1) since it covers three essential dimensions (time, content, places of learning). A mutual dependency and a special need for coordination of time, content, and sites become apparent, as well as the need for joint coordination among the stakeholders involved. Consequently, this definition appears to be complete, as it tries to cover all essential aspects. It also takes into account the content perspective referring to academic issues such as the question of which subjects should be taught. As such, the principle of continuous and intensified cooperation between university and enterprises have characterized CSPs (Gensch, 2016, p. 7). Educational definition for the term cooperative study program The following paragraphs present an approach to CSPs in the field of education. The intention behind this has been to supplement it with the selected definition of CSP to further sharpen the notion. Kolb’s (1984) theory of experimental learning seems to be appropriate to visualize CSPs and the learning processes involved. His theory of experimental learning proposes clear elements for teaching and learning and includes four types of opportunities that should be available for effective learning (Kolb, 1984). First, the possibility of being able to make concrete experiences (“Concrete Experience”); second, the possibility of being able to reflect on one’s investigations (“Reflective Observation”); third, the possibility of being able to conceptualize on an abstract level (“Abstract Conceptualization”); and fourth, the possibility of being able to actively experiment (“Active Experimentation”). The four ways of gaining learning experiences are illustrated in a cycle understood as Kolb’s (1984) “experimental learning cycle” (see Figure 2.2).

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

Academic teaching

77

Workplace training

Integraon of academic teaching and workplacetraining in a curriculum

Note. Author’s representation based on the presented definitions.

Fig. 2.1 Graphical representation of the concept of CSPs

Work environment Concrete experience

Acve applicaon and experimentaon

Reflecve observaon

Abstract conceptualizaon and theory Academic environment

Note. Author’s representation based on Kolb (1984).

Fig. 2.2 Visual representation of Kolb’s “experimental learning cycle” as a theoretical concept to understand CSPs

78

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Transferred to CSPs, the four types of learning can be understood in the following way: First, a CSP gives students the opportunity to gain experience in the working world in their enterprise (see Figure 2.2). It takes place in concretely defined phases in the course of their studies. Second, students can reflect on their experiences as insights. They are accompanied by an assigned supervisor in the company and by a responsible professor at the university. Third, during the defined phases of academic teaching at the university, students have the opportunity to conceptualize their experiences on an abstract level and place them in theoretical contexts. In this, they are supervised and accompanied by professors and part-time lecturers. Fourth, the students take their now theoretically expanded knowledge into a practical context, either during the practical phase in the company or for a student project at the university. This allows students to actively apply and experiment with their knowledge and leads back to the first step, namely the collection of concrete experiences in practice. It can be concluded from this that in the case of CSPs, the “experimental space” (and thus the learning space) exists in the two places of learning, namely the university and a company’s business premises. At this point, a connection can also be made to the concept, as mentioned earlier, of employability and competence orientation in CSPs.

2.4.4

Landscape of CSPs

This subsection provides key statistic indicators of CSPs in Germany to illuminate the characteristics of these programs in practice. Further, various qualitative aspects—including the institutional landscape, the distribution of academic disciplines, the legal aspects, and the engagement of industry—sketch out the current state of CSPs in Germany and give an impression of this subsector of the higher education system. Number of students and position in the German HE system A total of about 2.8 million students are enrolled at universities in Germany. Among them are about 100,000 dual students, which makes up a share of 3.5 percent. In relation to the number of students enrolled at UAS, namely about one million students, dual students account for about 10 percent. Further, the statistic figures in Germany have shown that CSPs have grown to host more than 100,000 enrolled students in 2016 (in initial training) (BIBB, 2017, p. 9). At the same time, CSPs are still a niche phenomenon in the German higher education system, despite the strong growth (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 12). The most vigorous growth in the niche happened over a period of 10 years (2006 to 2016): between 2006 and 2016,

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

79

the number of courses offered increased by 60 percent, the number of cooperating companies doubled, and the number of enrolled students increased two and a half times (see Table 2.10). Tab. 2.10 Development of CSPs in terms of the number of courses offered, the number of cooperating companies and the number of enrolled students Year

Number of degree courses offered

Number of cooperating enterprises

Number of students enrolled

2006 2016

608

22.003

43.536

1.592

47.458

Growth rate within 10 years

100.739

+ 61,8%

+ 53,6%

+ 56,7%

Note. Author’s representation referring to BIBB, 2017, p. 9.

Concerning the regional distribution (distribution among the federal states in Germany) of CSPs (measured by the number of courses offered), the following picture emerged (based on statistical figures): Bavaria had 321 officially registered CSPs in 2016 and ranks first in terms of regional distribution. North Rhine-Westphalia ranked in second place with 311 officially registered CSPs in 2016. With 275 officially registered CSPs, Baden-Wuerttemberg occupied third place in 2016 (BIBB, 2017, pp. 20–21). Typology of CSPs Due to its federalism, Germany offers a wide variety of study programs as CSPs or with the label “dual.” Thus, not every study program follows, in essence, the core concept of CSPs. This is a major problem for studying the CSPs owing to the lack of clear quality criteria for CSPs. The following example illustrates this in more detail (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). In the example of CSPs in the federal state of Bavaria, a CSP is implemented by combining a regular course at a UAS with practical phases in companies (Krone, 2015a; Krone et al., 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). Semester breaks are used for practical phases, leading to a schedule of four months of study at the university and about two months of practical training in a company. In the example of Baden-Wuerttemberg, on the other hand, the study periods are detached from the classic semester sequence of a university. Here, the temporal division between the university and the company, which is binding for all parties, is organized in a three-month rotation (Hesser, 2019;

80

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). The examples show the very different concepts of CSPs and their practical implementations. This makes comparability and the formation of jointly accepted quality standards more difficult. The German Science Council (2013) has identified that problem and has published a recommendation paper issuing the order and classification of CSPs in Germany, resulting in a typology of CSPs (see Table 2.11); we referred to these recommendations to describe more precisely what supported the identification of a CSP-type. Tab. 2.11 Typology of CSPs according to the German Science Council (2013) Individual educational pathway Initial training (after graduation from secondary education)

Continuing education

Format of the study program In combination with vocational training

Initial training (after graduation from secondary education)

With practice-integrated parts

Degree course with practice-integrated parts (Bachelor)

In combination with job

Continuing education

With practice-integrated parts

Degree course with practice-integrated parts (Master/Bachelor)

Note. Representation adopted by the author with reference to Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 23.

The German Science Council distinguished between CSPs in initial and continuing education (see Table 2.11; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 23). The field of initial education differentiates between a “practice-integrated model” and a “combination model.” The practice-integrated model is also known as the “block model” and alternates teaching phases at the university and training phases in companies. This is done, for example, in a three-month rotation. Two learning locations are therefore combined and coordinated with each other. At the end of the course of studies, graduates receive their bachelor’s degree (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 6). Further, the practice-integrated model has been the most popular form of CSPs in Germany (Goeser et al., 2012; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019); and this also applied to the case study used in our thesis6 . 6

At this point it should be mentioned that in the context of our study we focus on the “practice-integrated model” of CSPs. This is the dominant model in the case of the DHBW. This model is, due to the historical development, to a certain extent the “original model” of CSPs and for this reason, the DHBW was chosen as a case study institution.

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

81

The combination model incorporates teaching phases at the university with training phases in companies and training phases in a vocational school. Thus, three learning locations are coordinated and harmonized with each other. In addition, at the end of a course of study, a bachelor’s degree and professional qualification are achieved (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 6). In the field of continuing education, a distinction is made between CSP formats “integrated into the profession” and “accompanying the profession.” We mention them for the sake of providing a comprehensive picture. However, we will not go further into these two formats as they are not relevant for our research. For a better illustration of the subject area, we have included statistical data: in Germany, three types of CSPs have been distinguished and recorded statistically: the combination model, the practice integrated model, and other types. It is particularly noticeable that the practice-integrated model of CSPs dominates the field of initial education (BIBB, 2017, pp. 10–11); its share is about half of the total offer concerning the number of offered study programs (see Table 2.12). Tab. 2.12 Distribution of CSP formats for initial training Year

Combination model of CSPs

Practice integrated model of cooperative stud programs

Other types of CSPs

Total

2016

565

805

222

1.592

Note. Author’s representation referring to BIBB, 2017, p. 11.

Institutional landscape In Germany, it is primarily the UAS that offer the full range of CSPs in initial education as well as in continuing education. In contrast to this, universities of cooperative education (Berufsakademien) and the DHBW exclusively offer practice-integrated study programs (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 10). This is due to the fact that—as already mentioned in the chapter on the higher education system—responsibility for higher education lies with the federal states (Länder). The German Science Council (2013) has already noted that the legal framework can be very uneven, leading to CSPs conducted differently according to regional contexts. The example of the universities of cooperative education illustrates this point: universities of cooperative education are either public bodies or private institutions. Some of the federal states count universities of cooperative education as part of the tertiary sector, while others do not. Since the beginning, CSPs have been the domain of universities of applied sciences. The universities only play a secondary role in this field (Mordhorst &

82

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Nickel, 2019, p. 15). In addition, the majority of dual students (students enrolled in CSPs) can be found at public universities. The number of students at public universities is two and a half times higher as at private universities (see Table 2.13). Tab. 2.13 Distribution of students in initial education by provider and organizational form 2016 CSPs at

University of applied sciences

DHBW

University of cooperative education

University

Others

Total

Public

28.780

33.326

7.411

1.182

1.823

72.522

Private

18.535

6.373

2.279

1.030

28.217

Note. Author’s representation referring to BIBB, 2017, p. 17.

Looking at the institutional landscape, the DHBW is the largest provider of CSPs (according to student numbers) among the state-funded universities with over 33,000 students and thus stands out in this statistic. This is also stated by the higher education researchers from the CHE: by far, the most “dual students” in Germany study at the DHBW (Meyer-Guckel et al., 2015; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019). In addition, CSPs are mostly to be found at the bachelor level (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 17). In addition, the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg established a “new type of university of applied sciences” with DHBW apart from UAS and traditional research-oriented universities (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 12). To conclude, a very heterogeneous landscape of institutions and sponsors has been identified. However, one has also seen that Baden-Wuerttemberg with its DHBW stands out significantly with its CSPs based on statistical figures. Distribution of academic disciplines The typical academic disciplines and the related job profiles in CSPs are engineering, business administration, social work, computer science, and health sciences (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, p. 12). The majority of students in CSPs are in initial education, and the students have a high school diploma or vocational diploma (Krone, 2015a; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). In terms of disciplinary distribution, the statistical figures on CSPs in Germany show how business administration and engineering dominate. Overall, professionally-oriented disciplines are well represented (BIBB, 2017; Meyer-Guckel et al., 2015) (see Figure 2.3).

2.4 Characterization of Cooperative Study Programs in Germany

83

Other, 6%

Social work and health sciences, 10%

Engineering , 38% Computer science, 12%

Business aministraon , 34%

Note. Author’s representation referring to BIBB, 2017, p. 14.

Fig. 2.3 Subject areas of CSPs in initial training

Legal aspects The legal framework for the design of CSPs in Germany is characterized by a “legal triangular relationship” comprising the FPOs or NPOs (workplace training provider), the university, and the student (Krone, 2015a). Students’ obligation to pay social insurance, for example, reflects this legal relation. Furthermore, FPOs or NPOs regulate the admission to CSPs: people interested in studying apply for a study place at a FPO or NPO. Hence, employers decide whether a study place is offered or not and determine the selection procedure. A successful application needs both a contract with a FPO or NPO for the duration of the CSP and proof of the general university entrance qualification. Thus, this procedure constitutes a unique feature within Germany’s tertiary system. Typically, higher education and access to higher education is a state matter, and, therefore, state institutions conduct the selection procedure in higher education. Consequently, Krone (2015) noticed that FPOs and NPOs (industry) fulfill a specific “gatekeeper-function” at the interface between school and studies (Krone, 2015a).

84

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

Engagement of FPOs and NPOs (industry) The growth of CSPs depends not only on the university side and its capabilities but also on the business side and its capabilities (Graf, 2013a, p. 108) in the form of a double or “dual” dependence. Thus, CSPs and their quantitative and qualitative development also depend on a certain number of FPOs and NPOs (industry) that are capable of (and intend to offer) this type of training. In addition, CSPs require close cooperation on both sides, between companies and universities (Hesser, 2019; Meyer-Guckel et al., 2015). Concerning the number of cooperating companies, the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg leads the statistics: here, in a nationwide comparison, most companies are involved in CSPs. (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, p. 151). In addition, a statistical comparison between the federal states showed a correlation with the economic strength of a region, which is why the federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, and North Rhine-Westphalia again occupy the top three ranks (Maennig-Fortmann & Poppenhagen, 2019, p. 3). The size of a company also plays a role in an engagement in a CSP (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019, pp. 150–151). In the case of Baden-Wuerttemberg, a study also found that CSPs fuel the smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) there with the necessary skilled workers (Schenkenhofer & Wilhelm, 2019, p. 13). Further, the initiators of CSPs primarily are enterprises or their associations on a regional level, which might demonstrate their regional interests in cooperative higher education (Krone, 2015a). This is another reference point to the third mission. In addition, there might be similar problems regarding the cooperation of two learning venues, such as it can be found in the dual VET system. Consequently, a performance component of CSPs lies in the cooperation and collaboration between diverse stakeholders (Krone, 2015a). In addition, this indicates another reference point for the third mission because it involves the governance problem of the engagement of external stakeholders.

2.4.5

Concluding Remarks on CSPs

To summarize this subsection: one can conclude that CSPs appeared as an instrument for attracting new students and raising the profile of higher education institutions. In addition, CSPs depended strongly on the regional context; their form of supply has been strongly influenced by the local governmental regulatory bodies as well as by the local economy (request for educational offer). This resulted in a heterogeneous landscape of CSPs in Germany, which is a challenge for HE researchers in terms of coverage and comparability. The original model of

2.5 Baden-Wuerttemberg as a Context for CSPs …

85

CSPs stems from Baden-Wuerttemberg, and this federal state still holds a prominent position in the development status of CSPs in Germany. This led us to the following section, which deepened the establishment of a regional context for this thesis.

2.5

Baden-Wuerttemberg as a Context for CSPs: Economy and the Link to Application-Oriented Higher Education

We dedicate this section to the presentation of the regional innovation system of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (BW) and the application orientation in its HE system in particular. It was essential to provide context on this federal state and its peculiarities to better understand the regional framework wherein CSPs emerged and are carried out. BW has been presented and discussed as Regional Innovation System (RIS) in RIS literature at a very early stage (see more on RIS in Chapter 3). It characterized BW by a long-established practice of cooperation and collaboration between institutions and stakeholders across sectoral boundaries and a strong orientation in the direction of application and practice relevant education (Cooke, 2001; Cooke & Morgan, 1994; Heidenreich & Krauss, 1997; Koch et al., 2018). Further, BW has been marked by a strong economy consisting of both numerous large industrial companies and small and medium-sized enterprises, leading this state to be considered a motor of economic development in Germany (Stahlecker & Zenker, 2017, p. 180). The industrial core areas consist of vehicle construction, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering (Krauss, 2020, p. 266). BW’s economically strong position within Germany and the European Union can be illustrated using the innovation index7 : in 2018, BW occupied a top position in this ranking and was identified as the region with the highest innovative capacity (Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2018). An important prerequisite for the innovative strength of BW (next to others such as research and development) is the training and supply of skilled workers throughout the state, both in the academic (e.g., CSPs) and vocational fields (Stahlecker & Zenker, 2017, p. 181). The so-called “Baden-Württemberg innovation system”

7

The innovation index is an indicator for the innovative strength of a region and is calculated every 2 years by the state statistical office of Baden-Wuerttemberg (Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2018).

86

2

Literature Review and Context of this Thesis

has been attested a high degree of internal coordination and alignment (Heidenreich & Krauss, 1997; Krauss, 2020). Particularly the high relevance of cooperative relationships between suppliers and customers was emphasized (Krauss, 2020, p. 271). Further, it was postulated that this is particularly true for the industrial core areas (Krauss, 2020, p. 272) and that three core elements characterize the system in BW: 1. A high level of research and development activities within the state that are firmly rooted in industrial companies and networked with research institutions and universities. In addition, these are strongly oriented towards the core industrial sectors (Krauss, 2020, pp. 273–274). 2. The education and training system was identified as another element of the Baden-Württemberg innovation system. Here, the particular importance of practice-oriented training was emphasized, including, for example, the universities of applied sciences and the CSPs. The close links between training and practice at local and regional levels were also highlighted as an outstanding characteristic (Krauss, 2020, p. 275). 3. Industrial relations were identified as another critical element. These relate primarily to a cooperative relationship between employees and employers (Krauss, 2020, p. 275). It was concluded that BW has a unique network of industrial firms on the one hand and supporting institutions on the other within its regional innovation systems (Krauss, 2020, p. 279). Further, a high degree of maturity has been attested to the RIS in BW (Stahlecker & Zenker, 2017). The higher education system also played and still plays a key role in research and teaching, and the CSPs reflect the close ties to the industry, including a strong orientation towards practical relevance (Krauss, 2009). Thus, Schenkenhofer & Wilhelm (2019) have underlined, for example, the importance of CSPs in the case of small and medium-sized companies: these are supplied with additional human capital through CSPs, which have improved the competitive position of these companies (Schenkenhofer & Wilhelm, 2019). They based their study on the case study of BW and its Cooperative State University system to substantiate their insights. The expansion program of the universities provided by the state government of BW also demonstrated the great importance of the supply of skilled workers. Heinbach & Kühnle (2012) analyzed the effects of the double A-levels in BW and Bavaria and the political response with university expansion programs. In the case of BW, they emphasized that UAS and the DHBW were given special

2.5 Baden-Wuerttemberg as a Context for CSPs …

87

consideration and were thus able to expand their capacities if additional study places showed a high degree of labor market relevance (Heinbach & Kühnle, 2012). The CSPs in BW have been bundled at one university (as an institution), the DHBW, under state sponsorship (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b) which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Research, and the Arts of BW. The statistical state office of Baden-Wuerttemberg (2020) distinguishes between five types of universities, namely (research-oriented) universities, teacher training colleges, art and music colleges, universities of applied sciences, and the DHBW (Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2020). The high number of UAS in BW, namely 41 (in state and private sponsorship), is particularly noteworthy. Comparing this figure with the figures for the other federal states at the Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020), BW proved to be the federal state with the highest number of application-oriented universities (counting UAS and the DHBW). The following picture emerged concerning the number of students: of the 2.8 million students nationwide (winter semester 2018/2019), 359,824 study in BW (approx. a 13 percent share of students nationwide). Of these, 151,138 (winter semester 2018/2019) are studying at a UAS: thus, the number of students studying at a UAS in BW is 42 percent. Nationwide, about 1 million students (winter semester 2018/2019) are enrolled at a UAS, and BW has a share of about 15 percent (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020, pp. 8–9). Further, the approximately 34,000 students enrolled at the DHBW (Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2020) thus account for about ten percent in relation to the total number of students in the federal state of BW. Consequently, BW has a significant proportion of dual students. Based on statistical figures, the following conclusions can be derived: BW has a high proportion of students studying at UAS or the DHBW. Therefore, one can conclude that study programs relevant to the labor market seem to be particularly popular in BW. Furthermore, this appears to be directly related to the topic of RIS described above. Hence, we assumed for our thesis that BW is a relevant case for research on study programs with application and practical relevance, and thus, a teaching-oriented third mission, such as CSPs. This section allows extracting two insights for this thesis: firstly, BW has a mature RIS with a high degree of networking and cooperation across sectoral boundaries, and secondly, a strong focus on application orientation in the training of professionals, as the example of CSPs showed.

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

This chapter presents and discusses the conceptual and theoretical considerations for this thesis. The chapter consists of four sections, each dealing with one main subject area. The first section (3.1) discusses a selection of third mission conceptualizations. This includes an analysis of overlaps between the third mission and its antecedents, leading to a classification of the CSPs studied. What follows are selected economic-driven conceptualizations of the third mission, which are Triple Helix, Regional Innovation System (RIS), and Entrepreneurial University. Third, a conclusion provides insights from these conceptualizations for our research. The second section (3.2) deals with concepts on the governance term in general and governance of HE in particular. First, an exploration of the governance concept from a political science and a business administration perspective is carried out. Second, the governance of HE, with particular emphasis on the most salient theoretical conceptualizations of HE governance, is presented and discussed, providing a working definition of HE governance. Third, a conclusion deals with insights from these concepts for our analytical framework used in this thesis. The third section (3.3) deals with stakeholder theory. After an overview of the underlying theoretical basis, the identification and location of stakeholders are discussed in detail, followed by an outline of and possible solutions. Third, a critical reflection of stakeholder theory and a conclusion summarizing the most important insights of stakeholder theory for our research lead round off the theoretical framing for this study. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_3). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_3

89

90

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

Finally, the insights drawn from these conceptual and theoretical considerations are condensed into a theoretical model serving as the analytical framework for our dissertation (3.4).

3.1

Conceptualizing the Third Mission

This section starts with a classification of the third mission and entails a presentation and discussion of third mission conceptualizations chosen to build our analytical framework—specifically Triple Helix, Regional Innovation System (RIS), and Entrepreneurial University. The section ends with a conclusion that contains the main insights on the conceptualizations presented and discussed for our research.

3.1.1

Problem of Third Mission’s Mission Overlap and Classification of the Thesis

The selection of concepts concerning the third mission of universities relies on understanding interactions and social relations in a system. The third mission concepts we selected focus on the stakeholder perspective and were therefore chosen for our research. However, as Jongbloed (2008) noted, “[t]he basic problem with analyzing the third mission is that it entails a good deal of mission overlap.” (Jongbloed et al., 2008b, p. 312). Figure 3.1 visualizes this overlap as follows, drawing on Roessler (2015): The graph has been modified for use in this research project and displays the three functional areas of a university: teaching, research, and the third mission. The Venn diagram depicts up to four fundamental overlapping areas between teaching (T), research (R), and the third mission (TM). The intersection of two elements consists of “teaching and research” (T—R), “teaching and third mission” (T—TM), and “research and third mission” (R—TM). The overlap of three elements consists of “teaching, research and third mission” (T—R—TM) at the center (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 15). The present study uses the Venn diagram to determine the governance of the third mission in CSPs (see Figure 3.2). We argue against the backdrop of our literature review that CSPs constitute an example of the third mission in the domain of university teaching; that is, they represent a so-called teachingrelated third mission. Hence, the focus will be within the “teaching” circle and its overlapping areas: teaching and third mission (T—TM), teaching and research

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

91

Teaching (T)

R–T

T – TM T – R – TM

Research (R)

R – TM

Third Mission (TM)

Note. Author’s representation based on Roessler et al., 2015, p. 15.

Fig. 3.1 Overlap of universities’ three missions

(T—R), and teaching, research, third mission (T—R—TM). It is expected that with the help of the Venn diagram, all aspects of CSPs can be covered from the prospect of the third mission. After the above classification of CSPs in the Venn diagram, the following conceptualizations for the third mission stand out in the literature: The Triple Helix, as well as Regional Innovation System concepts, are used to primarily examine the macro and meso levels. The concept of the Entrepreneurial University focuses on the meso and micro level of an organization and complements our setting.

3.1.2

Selected Conceptualizations of Third Mission

Conceptualizations of the third mission vary greatly among researchers. For example, Henke et al. (2015) pursued a pragmatic approach to categorizing the third mission. They distinguished between those making primarily an economic contribution and those emphasizing non-economic aspects such as the issue of sustainability (Henke et al., 2015, p. 16). They counted conceptualizations such

92

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

University

Teaching Research

Cooperave Study Programs Third Mission

Society

Note. Author’s representation based on Roessler et al., 2015, p. 15.

Fig. 3.2 Classification of CSPs in the Venn diagram of the “third mission”

as the Triple Helix (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020; Etzkowitz & Ranga, 2013; Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000a; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017), the Regional Innovation Systems (Asheim et al., 2011; Cooke, 2020; Lundvall, 2007) and the Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998b; Etzkowitz, 2013) to the economic contribution. We followed this pragmatic approach for our research and address a teaching-related third mission contributing to economic development by qualifying bachelor students on regional and local levels. Therefore, it was appropriate for this thesis to use those conceptualizations that primarily refer to the third mission’s economic contribution.

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

93

3.1.2.1 The Triple Helix The Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations has been used to promote regional development and entrepreneurship. The Triple Helix focuses on understanding the underlying dynamics of interactions between the three institutional spheres of university, industry, and government. The concept is used as an analytical framework to gain an understanding of interactions in the context of innovation and involved stakeholders (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020). The understanding of innovation connected with the Triple Helix originally referred to activities that supported start-ups or technology transfer (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). Etzkowitz (2008) expanded the concept of innovation1 by declaring university and government to be important actors in the innovation process (and not only business) (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8). In this regard, the university, industry, and government sectors collaborate to boost and advance the regional and local economy (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Subsequently, without a conclusive organizational concept, these activities were seen as a dormant knowledge base and thus “unexploited potential” (Etzkowitz, 2013). Etzkowitz & Leydesdorf (2000) distinguished three models of the Triple Helix: first, the “statist model,” secondly, the “laissez-faire model,” and thirdly, the “balanced model” (see Figure 3.3). The three Triple Helix configurations were derived from research on national research and innovation systems worldwide.

Government

University

Government

Government

Industry

Industry

Statist model

University

University

Industry

Laissez-faire model

Balanced helix model

Note. Based on Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020, p. 12.

Fig. 3.3 Three models of Triple Helix

1

The concept of innovation was understood in Schumpeter’s (2017) sense: according to his theory of economic development, innovation involves a new combination of production factors and their economic implementation (commercial use).

94

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

Initially, the statist model was termed “Triple Helix I.” Here, the government encompasses university and industry and regulates the collaboration relation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 111). The “Triple Helix II” configuration was designated a laissez-faire model because institutions are strictly separated from each other, and collaboration relations between the actors are “highly circumscribed” (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 111). The balanced model or the so-called “Triple Helix III” appears with “generating a knowledge infrastructure in terms of overlapping institutional spheres” with changing roles of the participating actors and “hybrid organizations emerging at the interfaces” (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 111). Etzkowitz & Leydesdorf (2000) conclude that Triple Helix III is in use in different regional shapes in most countries with “(t)he common objective (…) to realize an innovative environment” (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 112). They also highlighted the trend towards the “balanced model” (Triple Helix III) of the Triple Helix (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020, p. 14). In summary, the Triple Helix is rooted in three streams: “innovation process,” “technology transfer,” and “research” and developed from this perception. This can be traced back to a changed understanding of the “production of knowledge” as cooperation and exchange relationship between academia and stakeholders outside academia (e.g., industry). In the literature, this has been called “Mode 2” (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2003), and Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000) connect their Triple Helix model to it in terms of an exploration of the underlying social structures (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 118). Hence, one may conclude that Triple Helix has been used to describe and discover research systems in their social contexts (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 109). Further, Etzkowitz & Ranga (2013) postulated that the concept of Triple Helix is used as a framework to explore the complex dynamics of the knowledge society and support policymakers in developing appropriate innovation and development strategies (Etzkowitz & Ranga, 2013, p. 3). Pavlin (2016) added that the Triple Helix offers a template to explore the manifold relations in a process of innovation in higher education, for example (Pavlin, 2016, p. 27). The Triple Helix has also been criticized. It was noted, for example, that the model was too normative, contradicting the claim of it being an independent theoretical model. It was also said that it has margins in its “explanatory power” (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020, p. 8). Taking stock of the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of the Triple Helix, Cai & Etzkowitz (2020) addressed the criticism of the concept. For example, it was recently voiced that civil society is not taken into account at all when considering the relations between university, industry, and government. In response, the concept of the Quadruple Helix was proposed,

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

95

which included civil society as another strand in the helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). However, it has been argued that civil society is considered a very valuable aspect and therefore provides the basis for Triple Helix interactions and is thus not addressed as a separate helix strand (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020, p. 21). This critique’s critique should also be countered by the wide range of the concept in its application. This has been sufficiently substantiated by Etzkowitz (2008) and is theoretically well-founded in his book on Triple Helix in Application (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). We argue that the original form of the Triple Helix is well suited for the purpose of this thesis since it provides an analytical concept to get access to the research topic of CSPs as a particular form of a teaching-oriented third mission. The literature review on CSPs showed that the relationship between academia, industry, and the government has promoted the development of these programs and drives their operation at both meso and micro levels. For this reason, the Triple Helix offered us a promising analytical approach. Returning to the balanced model or the Triple Helix III: it suggests the emergence of “tri-lateral networks” or “hybrid” organizations as new organizational formats to foster innovation in regional and local contexts (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8) (see Figure 3.4). Fig. 3.4 The Triple Helix III Model of UniversityIndustry-Government relations

Tri-lateral networks and hybrid organizations

Academia

State

Industry

Note. Based on Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 111.

Champenois & Etzkowitz (2018) argue that these hybrid organizations emerge to break up “innovation blockades” (Champenois & Etzkowitz, 2018, p. 2). Further, Etzkowitz (2008) defined the Triple Helix as “a platform for institution

96

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

formation, the creation of new organizational formats to promote innovation” within regional and local contexts (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8). The Triple Helix is based on the assumption that universities play a crucial role in the knowledge society and help generate and promote innovation (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 2). This basic assumption, in turn, contains a changed understanding of the role of the university. Etzkowitz (2008) has recorded this changed role as the “entrepreneurial role.” In the context of the knowledge society, the entrepreneurial role is not just limited to industry, but universities or the government can also take entrepreneurial action to promote innovation (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 3). Consequently, one can also argue that the university or a hybrid form of a university is serving certain economic needs. This is achieved, for example, by providing certain offers or services that are directly related to the core missions of research and teaching and have been developed in exchange with actors outside the university. This establishes the connection to the idea of the third mission. Thus, the Triple Helix III configuration seems to be well suited for our thesis. The Triple Helix shows that various stakeholders participate in the innovation process (teaching-oriented third mission in the shape of CSPs). This is especially true if the teaching system represents an educational innovation that involves stakeholders in the innovation process and its design. We assume that this is the case with CSPs (see section on CSPs), resulting in a modified representation of the Venn diagram of the Triple-Helix-Model of University-Industry-State relations applied to the case of CSPs as shown in Figure 3.5. For this thesis, we refer to the triadic model of the Triple Helix, which entails the Entrepreneurial University as a guiding framework. The university was understood as an Entrepreneurial University at a regional level, and it acts relatively autonomously by defining its strategic direction (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 29), such as focusing on educating students for the local economy (e.g., via cooperative study program offers) (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 8). The industry sector was subsumed under the collective term “for-profit and non-profit organizations” (FPOs and NPOs)2 and still holds its position as “key actor” and “production locus,” which, for example, requires well-trained personnel (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 1). Further, the government sector represented the state. Both aspects relate to the regional level 2

The term “for-profit and non-profit organization” (throughout abbreviated as FPO and NPO) in our thesis refers to the partner organizations that offer CSPs in close collaboration with the case study university. The term explicitly does not refer to university institutions but refers to industrial companies, small and medium-sized enterprises as well as social institutions and other organizations that are not universities. We use the term “FPO and NPO” in this thesis according to this understanding. The reason for this decision is to be able to cover as broad a spectrum of organizations as possible.

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

97

University

Cooperave Study Programs

For-Profit and Non-Profit Organizaons

Government

Hybrid Organizaon

Note. Author’s representation based on Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 111.

Fig. 3.5 Triple-Helix-Model of University-Industry-State relations applied to the current study

and offer the link to the concept of a Regional Innovation System (RIS) to understand this context better. For the CSPs, this means the federal state level, since, in German federalism, higher education is a state matter (see also the section on the German higher education system in Chapter 2). Etzkowitz (2008) proposed that the government is responsible for the rules of the interaction between university and industry (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 9).

3.1.2.2 The Concept of the Regional Innovation System The concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS) proved to be useful for this thesis, as it sharpened and deepened the role of the hybrid organization (entrepreneurial university as Triple Helix vehicle) in connection with the function of CSPs (as a teaching-oriented third mission) for their location and region.

98

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

In other words, the RIS concept has helped us better understand the spatial relationship as well as the outreach of the CSPs (macro level). Thus, RIS provides third mission activities of universities a context of action as well as reference space (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). Chapter 2 discussed the particular context of action for the case considered in our study, i.e., Baden-Wuerttemberg. Further, Arbo & Benneworth (2007) highlighted that third mission activities would contribute to a “regional mission” of universities which was relatively new (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). Thus, we present and discuss the RIS concept to better understand what is meant by it. The concept of RIS first appeared in the scientific literature in the early 1990s. RIS represents an extension of the concept of the National Innovation System (NIS). This concept goes back to scientists like Freeman (1987, 2009), Lundvall (1992), and Nelson (1992) and has been widely used in innovation research and innovation policy practice since the early 1990s (Freeman, 1987, 2009; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1992). The idea of NIS grasped aspects of the commercialization of knowledge to advance the national (or regional in the case of RIS) position within global competition (or competition among regions). Further, the work of Phil Cooke (2001), in particular, has contributed to spreading the concept of RIS and has broken down the ideas of NIS to the regional level (Cooke, 2001). In the notion of a RIS, regions take on self-responsibility for their societal and economic development and are regarded as networks of innovation (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). We assume this also shows the importance of the geographical spatial dimension. In addition, the case of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (see Chapter 2) was an early case for in-depth consideration as an object of RIS investigation in empirical studies (Cooke & Morgan, 1994; Krauss, 2020). The literature points at the “systemic character” of RIS. In the knowledge society, a permanent process of innovation is seen as the key to economic growth and ensuring competitiveness. Particular importance was attached to the process of knowledge production: its continuous generation, application, and economic exploitation were seen as fundamental prerequisites. In this context, innovation was seen as the result of mutual exchange and learning processes between actors in an innovation system. Thus, the success of innovation is strongly influenced by the activities and cooperation of all innovation actors in a region. Asheim et al. (2011) provided a useful definition of a RIS. They defined it as the totality of all economic, social, and institutional elements and relationships that impact the innovation performance and capability of enterprises. The focus of RIS is on the interactions between stakeholders from the public and private sectors, who participate in innovation activities of a region and at the same time are integrated into superordinate innovation systems (e.g., NIS) (Asheim et al., 2011).

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

99

Tödtling & Trippl (2011), for example, characterized a RIS as a complex structure involving various stakeholders and entailing two partly overlapping subsystems as central elements: these are a system of knowledge production and dissemination and a system of knowledge application and exploitation. The two subsystems are integrated into a common socio-economic and cultural framework (Tödtling & Trippl, 2011). Figure 3.6 illustrates the elements and relationships of a RIS’s prototypical structure (see Figure 3.6).

Regional Innovaon System (RIS) Knowledge applicaon & exploitaon system Vercal networking

Customers

External influences

Contractors

Companies (Innovators) Collaborators

NIS instuons

Competors

Horizontal networking

NIS policy instruments Infrastructure & financing system

Knowledge, resource and human capital flows and interacons

Regional innovaon policy

Other RISs

Knowledge generaon and diffusion system

Intermediary instuons (technology, human capital)

Research instuons

Universies & other educaonal instuons

Internaonal Instuons

EU policy instruments

Regional socioeconomic and cultural seng

Note. Author’s representation according to Autio, 1998, p. 134.

Fig. 3.6 Illustration of RIS elements and relations

The following brief explanation of Figure 3.6 will first focus on the subsystem of knowledge generation and diffusion. The “institutional elements” presented therein are intermediary institutions3 , research institutes, as well as universities,

3

Intermediary institutions are those organizations that play a mediating role in RIS. They assume a kind of bridge function between different organizations. For example, activities related to technology transfer are considered typical tasks of an intermediary (e.g., Chambers of Industry and Commerce, transfer offices, business development agencies). They mediate,

100

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

and other educational institutions. In addition, universities and research institutions were also perceived as constituting elements of a RIS (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). In the context of this thesis and its research question, the RIS concept could be interpreted to mean that a higher education institution educates students (human capital) in a tailor-made way in cooperation with the industry (e.g., CSPs) within one region incorporating a mutual exchange process (we interpreted it as an intermediary role therein). This would complement a RIS and promote the process of knowledge, resource, and human capital flows and interactions therein. We assume that an Entrepreneurial University could take on this kind of dual role to train on the one hand human capital with its core mission of teaching and, on the other hand, to convey this directly into the “knowledge application and exploitation system” (industry). These activities might require a high degree of flexibility and autonomy within RIS. Consequently, these could be covered by an Entrepreneurial University (see the following subsection) wherein Triple Helix interactions promote “innovation” (in the form of CSPs). Arbo & Benneworth (2007) pointed to individuals and their engagement with third mission activities carried out between individuals from academia and industry in the context of a RIS (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). This shows that the agency of individuals in the engagement of, e.g., technology transfer activities form the RIS core. A large number of studies and research articles focusing on that illustrated this. Leišyt˙e & Sigl (2018), for example, examined the micro level in the case of North-Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) in Germany. They pointed out the crucial aspects that shape the relationships in an innovation system in a Triple Helix context. According to their study, trust on the side of research managers in their scientists, scientific standing, leadership, and academic entrepreneurial styles has been an important factor, resulting in the detection of two agency types (Leišyt˙e & Sigl, 2018). From this, it can be concluded that the quality of the relationships on an individual level in itself determines the Triple Helix in an innovation system and that the Triple Helix itself can reveal the shape of a RIS. To give another example: Fochler (2018) has investigated how narrative learning processes among entrepreneurs relate to regionally practiced universityindustry-government relationships. Based on biographical interviews with company founders from the Vienna Biotech Cluster, he showed how they learn for their start-up from stories of success and failure within their cluster. He emphasized that the financing of innovations in the life sciences is particularly complex for example, between research institutions and small and medium-sized companies (Koch et al., 2018, p. 15).

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

101

and dynamic and plays a distinct role in the specific innovation system (Fochler, 2018). From this example, we learn that the dynamics in an innovation system depend on individuals and the particular context they act in. Borlaug and Gulbrandsen (2018) examined centers of research excellence based on interview data from Sweden and Norway. The institutional logics of innovation and excellence were assigned to these centers. This implies the expectation that the researchers working there produce economically and socially relevant output. Their research article asked how and to what extent these expectations influence the identity of researchers and scientific practice. For centers where the innovation logic was not explicitly in the foreground, it was found that engagement in innovation activities was a common feature and not problematic. However, for centers that strongly emphasized both logics, there seemed to be a problem. This was the case for those centers that were active in new fields of research or where networking with partners was still low (Borlaug & Gulbrandsen, 2018). For our research, we learned that framework conditions and support structures could have an impact on individuals. We assumed this also in the case of a RIS. In the RIS context, the problem of spatial delimitation has been discussed and identified. Hence, the problem entails a challenge to capture the geographic region appropriately for research (Asheim et al., 2011; Cooke, 2020). In research practice, the designation of regions in the context of political-administrative areas has been used as a pragmatic approach (Koch et al., 2018, p. 22). However, this would not always reflect the actual situation since innovation activities at the individual level would not stop at politically defined administrative boundaries (Asheim et al., 2011, p. 884). Further, it has been criticized that RIS draws too much attention to innovation in the field of technology and aligned activities, which has been reflected, for example, in heightened policy attention on industrial clusters embedded in a RIS (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). We gathered two insights from the presentation and discussion of RIS for our research: first, the RIS concept concentrates on the innovation process and shapes the macro perspective. This entails the institutions actively partaking in it, their interactions as well as their function in the system. We assume that we will be able to determine the role of the higher education institution under investigation in our research and thus gain valuable contextual insights. We discussed that individuals’ and their interactions within a RIS are the source of dynamics and accordingly shape the interactions. Hence, the specific context of a RIS and its framework conditions influence the actions of individuals. Therefore, we assume that we can learn more about the specific context of action of CSPs with a focus on the individual level. Finally, we learned that the Triple Helix concept can be

102

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

linked to RIS and that it functions to unravel the underlying roles of the actors driving the innovation. RIS can provide the framework for action and serves as a complementary heuristic for our research.

3.1.2.3 The Entrepreneurial University At present, the aim of universities is to meet a wide range of stakeholders’ needs and contribute to finding answers to social challenges (Jongbloed et al., 2008b; Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012). This, in turn, fits into the debate on the third mission of universities. Therefore, universities should be flexible and fast enough to provide appropriate offers and services. Thus, the concept of the Entrepreneurial University can be seen in this light. Etzkowitz (2008), for example, embraced the concept of the Entrepreneurial University as a vehicle to foster Triple Helix interlinkages (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 28). According to Etzkowitz (2007), the concept primarily suggests that the university is undergoing a cultural transformation. As a result, in the context of the knowledge society, the university plays a prominent role as an entrepreneur to promote regional development. This includes, for example, the education of students in cooperation with other stakeholders in the region to promote innovation there; we argue that this forms a link to the RIS concept. It has been argued that within the Entrepreneurial University concept, it is not only a matter of establishing suitable interfaces to enable cooperation between academia and industry. Rather, it is about entrepreneurial attitude and strategic vision (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2007, p. 1). The concept of the Entrepreneurial University originated from Clark (1998). Clark (1998) emphasized the term “entrepreneurial” in his concept. It is important to grasp the idea behind it to understand the concept as a whole. According to the Cambridge Dictionary (2020), the adjective “(is) relating to someone who starts his or her own business or is good at seeing new opportunities to make money.” In other words, this reflects the essence of entrepreneurship: to take a risk and generate relevant output. And this is what Clark (1998) implied as a characteristic of a social system (Clark, 1998b, p. 3). Further, he transferred this to the university context and referred to its ability to act strategically on an institutional level. In addition, Clark (1998) claims that a business-like innovation process is at the center of his conceptual considerations. Therefore, the university as an institution acts in an active (“entrepreneurial”) way to build a sustainable future. He emphasized the twofold nature of “(i)nstitutional entrepreneurship” as “process and outcome” (Clark, 1998b, p. 4). Furthermore, he outlined the specific organizational nature of the university as a distinct mixture of top-down and bottom-up “structures, processes and orientations” and deemed this as “(c)ollective entrepreneurial action”

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

103

(Clark, 1998b, p. 4). This is discussed by Clark (1998) in the context of transformation and change. The approach is “steering instead of drifting” (Clark, 1998b, p. 5). To be able to grasp and describe the concept of the Entrepreneurial University, Clark (1998) described five constituent elements which characterize the concept (Clark, 1998b, p. 5): 1. The “strengthened steering core”: Clark (1998) refers to a university leadership capable of acting, deeming it a “necessity” but also admitting that “that core can take quite different shapes” (Clark, 1998b, p. 5). 2. The “expanded developmental periphery” concerns organizational units of the university, which “reach across old university boundaries to link up with outside organizations and groups” (Clark, 1998b, p. 6). Thus, Clark (1998) stresses the need for a project-oriented culture encompassing the disciplinary competences of the university in order “to solve serious practical problems” which are “critical in economic and social development” (Clark, 1998b, p. 6). 3. The notion of a “diversified funding base” addresses the decline of financial support from the government side. Clark (1998) brings the financial consideration into play to diversify financial sources to minimize the risk. Hence, the university as an institution “step(s) up (…) efforts to raise money from a second major source” in order “to construct a widening and deepening portfolio of third-stream income sources” (Clark, 1998b, p. 6). 4. The “academic heartland” (Clark 1998) emphasizes that the role of academics remains important and calls this the “academic heartland” which “is still found in the traditional academic departments formed around disciplines” where “basic units, and their more encompassing multidepartment faculties, continue to be places where most academic work is done” (Clark, 1998b, p. 7). Further, he stresses out the need for academics to “participate in central steering groups” (Clark, 1998b, p. 7) to play an active part in university development and to bring in “traditional academic values.” 5. The “integrated entrepreneurial culture” is defined as a significant cultural element and the driving force behind the concept. Clark (1998) emphasized two aspects in particular: “work culture that embraces change” and the point that “(s)trong cultures are rooted in strong practices” (Clark, 1998b, p. 5) The Entrepreneurial University puts the interaction between the university and its environment at the center and combines this with the objective to create mutual benefits. Changing societal needs addressed to the university as an entity frame this notion. Hence, the university is supposed to find suitable responses to

104

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

changed requirements, and Clark’s (1998) concept of the Entrepreneurial University has been perceived as one conceptual solution to this problem: “This was seen by Etzkowitz (1997) as a third mission, and universities that embrace the three missions become ‘entrepreneurial universities.’” (Laredo, 2007b, p. 4) In addition, Burton R. Clark (1998) characterizes the approach of the Entrepreneurial University in his publication “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities.” In it, he refers to John L. Davies and his 1987 journal article “The Entrepreneurial and Adaptive University,” who already saw a university to be adaptive and innovative to the outside world’s needs (Davies, 1987). Extrapolating from this, Clark (1998) described the university as an institution that plays an active role in seeking innovations in its own business (Clark, 1998b, p. 4). In a different context, universities undertake entrepreneurial activities to contribute to regional or national economic and societal wellbeing as well as their and their units’ own financial advantage (Etzkowitz et al., 2000, p. 313). Furthermore, Sam and van der Sijde (2014) propose a useful (current) definition of the Entrepreneurial University: “An entrepreneurial university is a university that is able to take on several roles in society and in the innovation (eco) system.” (Sam & van der Sijde, 2014, p. 901) This definition has been helpful because it highlights two essential aspects of the concept: first, flexibility, which the statement “able to take on several roles in society” reflects, and secondly, “the innovation (eco) system” addresses the current systemic approach with a general utilization of institutions within society. Hence, the metaphor “eco-system” might be helpful and has to be defined more precisely. Mars, Bronstein, and Lusch (2012) discussed the metaphor critically and from different angles. They argue the imagery is used to characterize the “complex networks of actors, such as private industries, financiers, universities, and governmental agencies that are linked together through the pursuit of common technological goals and/or mutual economic gains” (Mars et al., 2012, p. 271). To gain a better understanding of the Entrepreneurial University, economic and management approaches have to be considered. Therefore, we mention the socalled “entrepreneurial constructs” (Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010), namely creative destruction by Peter Drucker and Joseph Schumpeter and economic equilibrium by Israel Kirzner incorporating “innovation, opportunity recognition, value creation, risk-taking and mitigation and the role of the institutional entrepreneur” (Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010, p. 453). Finally, the perceptions of the Entrepreneurial University provided a foundation for the third mission activities of a university. This entails the ability to take on different roles within knowledge society to address regional problems.

3.1 Conceptualizing the Third Mission

105

Hence, the Entrepreneurial University has the appropriate flexibility. This thesis assumes that the Entrepreneurial University educates students in cooperation with (external) stakeholders from the industrial sector quite autonomously. The dimensions of the Entrepreneurial University are relevant to our study of CSPs because they help to show how the creation and delivery of these particular study programs work relatively autonomously in collaboration with external stakeholders. Hence, this fuels regional and local labor markets with well-trained workers and contributes to regional development, which also could be seen in the light of a RIS.

3.1.3

Conclusion

Our research made use of the following insights from the presented and discussed concepts: first, the Triple Helix provides an analytical frame to understand interactions of stakeholders from university-industry-government driving innovation in a regional context (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020; Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). Further, the Triple Helix has been understood as an analytical frame to explore relations of higher education in innovation (Pavlin, 2016). The entrepreneurial role of the university has been highlighted in the shape of a hybrid organization that is capable of contributing to innovation (Etzkowitz, 2008). These insights allowed us to explore and understand CSPs and their underlying stakeholder interactions. Therefore, we interpreted the development and implementation of CSPs as innovation. We assumed this is the basis for observing how stakeholders influence the teaching-oriented third mission in our research. Second, RIS fosters innovation and has been defined as a complex structure entailing two overlapping subsystems: a system of knowledge production and dissemination and a system of knowledge application and exploitation embedded in a larger socio-economic context (Tödtling & Trippl, 2011). Further, universities and intermediary institutions have been identified as constituting elements of a RIS where innovation dynamics stem from interactions between individuals from academia and industry (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). From this, we conclude for our research that a RIS provides a regional framework for CSPs (regional context). We also assumed that in the case of CSPs, as implied in the RIS discussion, interactions at the individual level have been the source of dynamics for the promotion of a RIS. Third, the Entrepreneurial University has been seen as a vehicle for fostering Triple Helix interlinkages (Etzkowitz, 2008). It was given the flexibility to

106

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

practice multiple roles in the context of innovation (Sam & van der Sijde, 2014). The concept is centrally concerned with interactions between the university and its non-university environment to achieve mutual benefits (Clark, 1998b). For our research, we learned that a university functions as an autonomously hybrid institution in a RIS context carrying out Triple Helix interactions to drive CSPs. We assume that the Entrepreneurial University concept helps us to better understand the specific role of CSPs from the internal perspective of the university. Finally, we assumed that the combination of the three conceptualizations complemented and strengthened each other to investigate the CSP case in depth (from a third mission point of view).

3.2

Governance of Higher Education

This section is devoted to HE governance. First, the concept of governance is discussed from a political science and business management perspective to provide background context. Second, significant conceptualizations of university governance are presented and discussed as they formed the core of this thesis. Third, a conclusion is drawn from the concepts presented and discussed for this thesis.

3.2.1

On Governance and Governance of Higher Education

Governance is an analytical concept to denote the coordination of higher education. Further, governance as an analytical concept is applied to become aware of highly complex stakeholder configurations (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007). More specifically, governance deals with the control structures of a social system and their interactions, including “all processes of a social organization and social coordination” (Bevir, 2012, p. 3). This section deals with a presentation of a definition of governance for the third mission of universities. Thus, we first approach governance from the perspectives of political and economic science to gain a deeper understanding. Further, we discuss relevant models of higher education governance and provide a working definition of higher education governance for this thesis. In Europe, the governance of higher education has been determined and characterized by the New Public Management (NPM) approach to varying degrees (Hüther & Krücken, 2018; Schrader et al., 2015). Consequently, concepts such as “new managerialism” (Deem, 1998) or “entrepreneurialism” (Clark, 1998a) in higher education have reflected the ideal of the university as a “corporate actor”

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

107

(de Boer, Enders, & Leišyt˙e, 2007, p. 28). Although not unheard of, this has been less the case in Germany (Hüther, 2010; Schimank & Lange, 2009). Here, higher education governance has long been characterized by a mixture of academic selfadministration and exhaustive state regulation (Braun & Merrien, 1999; Clark, 1983; Hüther & Krücken, 2018). Fed by NPM imperatives, reforms have been carried out in a variety of governance arrangements in different national states (De Boer & File, 2009). Thus, NPM imperatives strengthened the position of university leadership (Hüther, 2010; Zechlin, 2017), and universities transformed into strategic actors (Krücken et al., 2007; Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2012). The competitive behavior this entailed is a development still in progress and embedded in a wider societal context (Krücken, 2017). This has led to higher education systems and universities competing with each other and among themselves in a “quasi-market” (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007; Ferlie et al., 2008; Nickel, 2011b). Therefore, strategies and structures from the corporate world have been introduced in higher education (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007) and resulted in a professionalization movement of university management (Hanft, 2017).

3.2.2

Exploring the Governance Term from a Political Science Perspective

The research that Mayntz (2008) undertook offered productive access to understand the field of and around governance. Mayntz (2008) unraveled governance as an analytical concept and theory together, showing its multifaceted nature through the dimensions of management, control, steering, and navigation. In the case of our research, governance has been understood as an analytical concept. Further, governance has increased since the 1970s within social science and political science, indicating a close relation to systems theory and cybernetics (Mayntz, 2008, p. 43). Within the discipline of political science, the understanding of governance was aimed at steering societal (sub)systems through policy by official state bodies. This perception focused on hierarchical management as a concept. Yet, in political practice, it turned out that this concept had reached its limits leading to the appearance of the idea of self-regulating mechanisms (Mayntz, 2008, p. 44). Anglophone countries have traditionally used the term governance to describe the process of governing (Mayntz, 2008, p. 45). The contemporary practice of political science distinguishes three types of governance:

108

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

hierarchy, cooperation, and sovereign power. Mayntz (2008) argued that governance and the modern perception evolved from international cooperation, and the contemporary governance concept combines elements of hierarchy with elements of cooperation. A popular example is the European Union (EU) and the cooperation between its national states. In this context, the term “multi-level governance” appeared. The contemporary perception of governance is characterized by a cooperative management style incorporating the involvement of diverse stakeholder groups (Mayntz, 2008, p. 46). Mayntz (2008) postulated as an interim conclusion that governance implies participation on the one hand and hierarchical interaction on the other; furthermore, traditional hierarchical governance and non-hierarchical governance have been distinguished depending on the sector of policymaking (Mayntz, 2008, p. 47). The so-called public-private-partnerships (PPPs), encompassing the cooperation of public and private stakeholder groups, have been depicted as a specific example (Mayntz, 2008, p. 48). Non-hierarchical types of governance depend on a firmly differentiated societal system comprising relatively autonomous subsystems where cooperation depends on equal stakeholder groups which are capable of acting. As a basic condition, the identification with the whole or a common major goal forms a prerequisite for cooperation (Mayntz, 2008, p. 48). According to Mayntz (2008), the notion of cooperative governance emerged from the OECD countries, and key characteristics have been regulation as a control mode and an institutionalized negotiation system (Mayntz, 2008, p. 49). Moreover, a multi-level system has been deemed complex but recordable, and the key to exploring its nature is to look at the relationships and interactions between the levels (Mayntz, 2008, p. 52). In addition, rights or laws assumed the function of control instruments: acts, statutes, standards, and agreements serve as evidence of this. Additionally, historical tradition should be taken into account (Mayntz, 2008, p. 53). To sum up, in Mayntz’s (2008) terms, the term governance has been characterized by hierarchy and self-regulation mechanisms combined with stakeholder engagement and sovereign power. Benz, Lütz, Schimank, and Simonis (2007) recorded that governance entails mechanisms of coordination between more or less autonomous actors whose actions affect each other—the so-called “interdependency.” To gather insights, it has been necessary to get a better understanding of how these mechanisms work. Thus, the underlying complex web of (social) interactions required a deep exploration (Benz et al., 2007, p. 9).

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

3.2.3

109

Exploring the Governance Term from a Business Administration Perspective

To form a contrast, we briefly introduce one example taken from the literature on governance and business administration as presented in the particular field of management studies. For an illustration, we draw on the work of Malik (2008) and his St. Gallen Management concepts (Malik, 2008b, 2008a). Here, governance has been conceptualized in general management terms, encompassing an organization’s design, control, steering, and development as a holistic system. This allows a generalization independent of an institution’s type, size, legal status, and activity area. Therefore, general management has been characterized as the sum of all functions necessary for running an organization (Malik, 2008b, p. 55). Thus, general management is vital at all levels of a highly complex organization. Closely related to the general management term is the notion of control. Control has been defined as the steering and regulation of a system aiming to adopt desired modes of behavior (Malik, 2008b, p. 54). As a point of departure, a basic system of corporate policy encompasses three elements: environment, business, and management. Underlying concepts derived from those three elements (environment concept, business concept, management concept) set the scene for a so-called “master-control system” of management (Malik, 2008b, p. 47). The master-control system comprises general parameters the management is working with to keep the organization as a system under control. It is constructed as follows: the environment shapes the outer circle of the model, and corporate policy and corporate governance constitute so-called master controls that shape the corporation as an organization. At the center of the model, the management shapes and utilizes the embedded subcontrols referring to strategy, structure, and culture (Malik, 2008b, p. 50). Therefore, one can conclude that the concept of corporate governance is embedded in corporate policy. The surrounding environment and internal governance are shaped by strategy, structure, and culture. The management takes on the crucial role of being responsible for the direction and development of the organization as a holistic system. Furthermore, the presented model draws particular attention to the interactions between the meso and the micro levels of an organization. The following figure (see Figure 3.7) illustrates the introduced model, which may also function as a supplementary heuristic for this thesis.

110

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

Strategy

Structure

Culture

Governance Corporate Policy Environment

Note. Depiction of the author based on Malik, 2008b, p. 51. Fig. 3.7 The General Management Model

Concluding remarks The two presentations on governance refer to the perspectives of political science and business administration, respectively. Combined, they form a synthesis that provides preliminary access to both a general concept of governance as well as a higher education one. We based this synthesis of perspectives on the fact that, on the one hand, higher education has been strongly influenced by politics and, on the other, the higher education organizations themselves have been acting like corporations due to reforms (see the discussion in the introduction of this section). However, we argued that these representations alone were not sufficient to find concrete access to governance of higher education. They simply lacked the specifics of higher education. Therefore, the next section focuses on the conceptualization of higher education governance and the presentation and discussion of relevant concepts.

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

3.2.4

111

Conceptualizing Governance of Higher Education

Studies of higher education based on sociological, public management, and political science theories (Dobbins & Jungblut, 2019; Juergen Enders et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2007) have developed a whole range of governance models. These models have embraced the perception of multi-level and multi-actor governance and the university-specific characteristics enabling them to perform strategic actions as universities have been transformed into organizational actors, including reinforcing their management capability (Hüther & Krücken, 2018). This resulted in a full range of variations in higher education practice which has been embedded in different legislative frameworks at national and regional levels (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 71). The following subsection presents several relevant models that provide access to the topic of governance in higher education.

3.2.4.1 Clarks’ “Triangle of Coordination” Burton Clark’s (1983) widely recognized “triangle of coordination” (Clark, 1983) helps to gain a better understanding of the relation between state and university. The constituting elements of the concept are state authority, market, and academic oligarchy. The concept has been applied to study the macro level between nations or explore shifts in the area between the macro and the meso level (Braun & Merrien, 1999). Concerning the triangle, the governance of higher education in Germany (and continental Europe as well) has been characterized by a strong state authority and academic oligarchy (Leišyt˙e, 2007, p. 29). In addition, Mintzberg (1989) designated higher education as a professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1989). He further emphasized that professionals are given control over daily operations to a certain degree—in other words, they control their own work. For this reason, on the one hand, power could be located at the bottom of a higher education institution. But on the other hand, political bureaucracy appears as a powerful counterpart (Mintzberg, 1989). For our research, the triangle of coordination has been used to explore state-university governance (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 71) at the macro level and how it shapes the meso and micro levels of the studied case. This was due to the fact that the object of investigation was a state institution and was therefore in direct interaction with state authorities. Concluding this subsection, the following illustration (see Figure 3.8) shows Clark’s triangle (Clark, 1983) in its original shape:

112 Fig. 3.8 Clark’s “triangle of coordination”

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations State Authority

Market

Academic Oligarchy

Note. Author’s depiction based on Clark, 1983.

3.2.4.2 Governance Equalizer Higher education scholars de Boer, Schimank, and Enders (2007) have provided an analytical tool for studying the governance of higher education. They developed the so-called “governance-equalizer” to examine the impact of the NPM reforms. In its original form, the analytical tool has been used to observe the relationships between actors at the macro and meso levels through five closely connected dimensions (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007; Jansen et al., 2007). The ideal configuration was illustrated by the grey boxes featured in Figure 3.9, entailing the following points: 1. The state regulation prospect shows the classic approach of top-down authority justified by the state; steering is done by directive. 2. The stakeholder guidance prospect comprises the delegation of certain powers to other actors such as university supervisory boards. The university is steered by goal setting and supervision. 3. The perspective of competition encompasses, for example, competing for scarce resources such as budgets, personnel, or the public image of the university—within and between universities on so-called quasi-markets. Performance evaluation done by peers replaces customer needs. Therefore, steering and allocation mechanisms are competition and markets. 4. The perspective of academic self-governance relies on the role of professional communities inside the higher education system. Its core aspects are collegial decision-making and peer review-based self-governance.

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

113

5. The managerial self-governance perspective is based on hierarchies inside universities as organizations. The leadership of the university is assumed by rectors or presidents and deans. So-called management tools appear as steering mechanisms, such as goal setting, regulation, and decision-making.

State Regulation

Academic Self-governance

External Guidance

Managerial Self-Governance

Competition

England The Netherlands Germany Austria The “grey boxes” refer to the NPM standard.

Note. Based on de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007, p. 149.

Fig. 3.9 Governance Equalizer compares shifts in governance in four countries

De Boer, Schimank, and Enders (2007) have developed and applied their analytical tool in the context of a comparative case study conducted by exploring the governance arrangements of four European countries (including Germany). In the case of Germany, they started their examination with a configuration that has been identified as a blend of strong state regulation and strong academic selfgovernance. In the light of the NPM reform processes, which also took place in Germany, a changed governance arrangement was observed which entailed the following: first, state regulation was scaled back for efficiency reasons; second, the stakeholder guidance prospect was strengthened by mission-based contracts and newly created university supervisory boards; third, the competition increased moderately by introducing evaluation and a quasi-market with competition in image boost and third-party funding; fourth, managerial self-governance was particularly strengthened by setting up a hierarchy and bestowing powers on university leadership, for example by strengthening the role of the university rector or president (meso level) and the role of the dean (faculty level, micro level); fifth, academic self-governance was slightly dampened but still remains strong in Germany.

114

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

From a critical perspective, it has to be noted that despite all reform efforts, the German higher education system is characterized by a “soft-governmental regime” since it is predominantly financed by the state (Wilkesmann, 2016). Further, the strong influence of the state remained largely intact, and only the power of the academic profession was pushed back in favor of strengthening managerial self-governance (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007; Hüther, 2010). However, applying the governance equalizer to the meso and micro levels has not been followed up so far and has been classified as experimental. For the purpose of our thesis, the model and its five dimensions served as a heuristic for exploring the governance of CSPs and thus the teaching-related third mission. This proved to be helpful in that its dimensions contributed to the recording and description of internal governance structures.

3.2.4.3 Working Definition of Governance of Higher Education Concerning the market-driven approach of the higher education system and the economic utilization of higher education in general, the OECD (2008) definition of governance of higher education delivered a useful working definition: Governance encompasses the structures, relationships and processes through which, at both, national and institutional levels, policies for tertiary education are developed, implemented and reviewed. Governance comprises a complex web including the legislative framework, the characteristics of the institutions and how they are accountable for the way it is spent, as well as less formal structures and relationships which steer and influence behavior. (OECD, 2008, p. 68).

For our research, we draw on this working definition of governance of higher education. The OECD definition (2008) delivered a rudimentary grid for the legislative framework, characteristics of the institutions, and structures, processes, and relationships emerging in the present research. In other words: the legislative framework represented the higher education policy; the structures represented the hierarchical elements as well as the organizational texture; processes reflected the orderly sequences associated with teaching, research, and the third mission; and the relationships stand for the involved stakeholder groups and their interactions. The definition follows an economic and political prospect. Furthermore, Austin and Jones (2016) emphasized the meaning of governance in the context of higher education as follows: Governance is essential to the functioning of higher education at all levels, from the basic academic unit of the department (microlevel), to the level of the organization (mesolevel) and the level of the higher education system (macrolevel). It is

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

115

the means by which order is created in the academy to achieve the goals of educating, researching and providing service to multiple publics. At the micro and meso levels, governance is related to the day-to-day functioning of universities and how they order their affairs through governance instruments that facilitate decision-making authority to ensure desired organizational performance outcomes. At the macrolevel, it is through governance mechanisms that the state attempts to ensure that its higher education system is achieving state-desired goals. (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 2).

The second definition served as a control instrument to check whether the most important aspects also have been reflected in the first definition of HE governance. Hence, the items mentioned above phrased the nature and scope of HE governance. They also delivered additional reference points for our research, allowing us to locate the basic academic unit at the micro level and the university as an organization at the meso level surrounded by the higher education system (macro level). The economic function of the higher education system has been reflected in the statements on performance outcomes and goal setting.

3.2.4.4 Internal Self-Governance The concept of internal self-governance referred to the conception of a “university (as) a self-legitimating corporate body with responsibility for the creation, dissemination, and the global governance of knowledge” (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 11). Furthermore, “academic self-governance has been rooted in the tradition that universities should principally be governed by their academic staff using collegiality to guide governance interactions among colleagues” (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 12). In particular, internal self-governance has been “linked to decisionmaking and decision-making authority” and “(t)herefore, there is hierarchy and there is legitimate authority” (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 12). Furthermore, many universities still use collegiality as the guiding philosophical practice of governance. Internal decision-making in large universities using the collegial model is done mostly through a committee system. (…) However, in the committee system, decision-making authority is delegated to committees whose compositions reflect participative and representative organizational democracy. (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 12).

In addition, the senate as “key apparatus” for academic self-governance is mentioned, yet at the same time, a so-called “bicameral governance model” is used, and a university council guides the senate as a place of academic decision-making with authority on strategic matters. Authority on administrative matters is transferred to a corporate governing board. This concept provided support to gain a better understanding of the following points: first, by referring to a committee system that is generally responsible for making decisions at universities; second,

116

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

by giving a basis for the acquisition of a bicameral system (senate, supervisory board); and third, by indicating the location of the decision for administrative issues, namely the “corporate governing board” (e.g., rectorate or presidium).

3.2.4.5 Market-Oriented Governance The concept of market-oriented governance has its origin in the neoliberal approach. Market and competition as constitutive key elements of this approach have been transferred to every sector of society. This also applies to the higher education sector and its institutions (e.g., universities, research centers, etc.) (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 16). Several policy reforms on all levels (OECD, WTO, EU, Federal Republic of Germany, federal states of Germany) pushed this development further. One popular catchword in this context is the New Public Management (NPM) reforms more than twenty years ago, which has impacted higher education governance (see the discussion at the beginning of this section). Higher education has been perceived as a market, and higher education institutions competed with each other, e.g., for their share of students or government funds. In higher education governance, the strengthening of the internal hierarchy was a consequence, and management tools from the corporate world were adopted to higher education institutions to compete in the market and easily accommodate market needs. As a result, a clash between two cultural approaches has been postulated: on the one hand, the market imperative including effectiveness and efficiency. On the other hand, the internal imperative of universities encompassing collegiality with trust and professional aspects. Thus, the field of tension has been characterized by its main features (Austin & Jones, 2016, pp. 17–18). “The increasing emphasis on markets has led many European universities to develop prestige maximization strategies, which have led to differentiation in higher education systems as intended or unintended by policy makers and university managers.” (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012, p. 126). Fittingly, the German Science Council (2013) has identified CSPs as differentiating features for universities within the German tertiary education, arguing from a perspective of market and competition (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013b, 2018). One may conclude the following: internal self-governance and its features might have reflected a predominantly bottom-up nature of university governance. On the other hand, market-oriented governance and its features might have reflected a rather top-down nature of university governance. These two sides of the same medal have been depicted by Wilkesmann (2016) in the following figure (see Figure 3.10) (Wilkesmann, 2016, p. 3):

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

117

Decision Implementation

top down

bottom up

Company

Association

Note. Based on Wilkesmann, 2016, p. 3.

Fig. 3.10 Universities constitute an ideal type between corporation and association

The left triangle depicts decision-making in the top-down mode, as is usual for corporations or enterprises. The right triangle illustrates decision-making in the bottom-up mode, as it can be found in an association. Thus, it can be concluded that the university is characterized by both and forms a hybrid type of decisionmaking organization.

3.2.4.6 The Stakeholder University Bleiklie and Kogan (2007) discussed two fundamental ideals underlying the organization and governance of contemporary universities. They argued that ideals have changed from the notion of the university as a “republic of scholars” towards the university as a “stakeholder organization” (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007, p. 447). Thus, this built a relevant basis for our thesis as the third mission implied the engagement of external stakeholders in university governance. The perception of the university as a republic of scholars entails that institutional autonomy and academic freedom have been regarded as equal. As a consequence, leadership and decision-making rest on collegial decisions by the professors. However, the notion of the university as a stakeholder organization sees institutional autonomy constituting the basis for strategic decision-making carried out by university leadership. Thus, the most urgent task of university leadership has been to “satisfy interests” of stakeholder groups. Therein, the “professors’ vote” is one among all other internal and external stakeholder groups. To

118

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

create prerequisites for “strategic decision-making,” hierarchical structures have been used to provide a certain “authority” for the university leadership. Thus, the item of “academic freedom” has been ascribed to the interests of the internal and major stakeholder group of professors (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007, p. 478). Further, Bleiklie & Kogan (2007) “undoubtedly” saw a shift from the ideal of the “republic of scholars” towards the ideal of the “stakeholder university” forming a “common type of organizational structure” (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007, p. 478). In their conclusion, they argued that with the rise of the knowledgebased society, the understanding of the function of higher education changed towards a commercial approach that has been characterized by a market and competition as imperatives for higher education. Hence, corporate structures have been introduced to higher education institutions (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007, p. 490). The ideal of the university as a “stakeholder organization” has been put into practice in several “national variations” (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007, p. 484).

3.2.4.7 Conceptualizing the Multi-Campus University Austin and Jones (2016) argued that massification, changing economic conditions within the national states, and the utilization of higher education to contribute to solving societal challenges have been some general challenges university governance has to deal with (Austin & Jones, 2016). For reasons of expansion and economic exploitation of higher education in the knowledge-based society, the phenomenon of multi-campus universities (MCUs) has been identified and discussed as a challenge of higher education governance (Austin & Jones, 2016; Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007; Pinheiro & Berg, 2016). It has been postulated that MCU governance remains underrepresented in the literature on governance of higher education. Although the practice of higher education offered a plethora of development strategies for higher education systems—including an expansion of campuses or building new campuses—there is a need for research on MCUs. In general, Austin and Jones (2016) have distinguished two fundamental types of MCUs (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 187): 1. A university with a main campus taking on responsibility for the administration and coordination of so-called branch campuses. Hence, the management of the branch campuses is accountable to the management of the main campus. 2. A collection of individual campuses that constitute “an overall system.” Thus, the individual campuses function independently from each other and are held accountable to an overall body.

3.2 Governance of Higher Education

119

MCUs are not a new phenomenon of higher education, but their role has grown regarding the growing demand for higher education in a knowledge-based society. Those complex multi-campus systems are not only a characteristic of Anglophone countries and their higher education systems. Politicians and university leaders pushed the agenda of change towards the multi-campus university concept to spread activities across multiple geographies, or with the goal to advance competitive benefits in the case of amalgamations of higher education institutions in different regional environments within a state (Pinheiro, Berg, et al., 2017; Pinheiro & Berg, 2016). However, the multi-campus university has heavy burdens to carry, among them their “organizational complexity,” which surfaces in “structural, financial and cultural matters.” Hence, the MCU constituted a “challenging task” in practice for the university management and its underlying governance arrangement. In addition, challenges lie in the geographical distance regarding the coordination and management of activities, though “geography lies in the heart of this system” (Pinheiro, Charles, et al., 2017, p. 2). The MCU approach proved to be helpful for this thesis as the case study presented an empirical case for a multi-campus university. Thus, our research could cover aspects of this issue.

3.2.5

Conclusion

Our research has aimed to understand how stakeholders influence third mission governance. Thus, it has been imperative to access and unravel the governance regime of our studied case. Two sets of insights have been pertinent in terms of our research: First, the working definition of higher education governance (OECD, 2008) offers the frame for studying the governance regime of the case study institution, including structures, processes, and relationships at the center. Our working definition is also concerned with the steering and influencing behaviors of stakeholders, which leads us to the notion of the university as a stakeholder organization (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007). Thus, we can understand and record how stakeholders influence governance in our studied case. The concept of internal self-governance emphasizes that decision-making and decision-making authority at universities are carried out through a system of committees, including a senate, a supervisory board, and the rectorate or presidium (Austin & Jones, 2016). Further, the concept of market-oriented governance assumed that HEIs compete with each other on a market, resulting in profile building through specific study

120

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

program offerings, for example, CSPs (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 16). Complementary, a second definition on HE governance provides the multi-level perception of governance and specifies the levels incorporating department/faculty (micro level), the level of the organization (meso level), and the level of the higher education system (macro level) (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 2). This use of insights stemming from different governance concepts focusing on the micro and the meso level allows us to understand the governance system of our studied case and the interactions of involved internal and external stakeholders. Hence, this helps us to understand the influences exerted. Second, HE governance conceptualizations focusing on the interface between the higher education system (macro level) and university organization (meso level) help us better understand the interactions and influences taking place there. The Triangle of Coordination (Clark, 1983) is concerned with state-university governance, which is important to explore when a university is a public institution, as is the case in our research. Further, the Governance Equalizer (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007) provides a heuristic analytical tool to explore and understand the governance practices in our case study in the light of NPM imperatives. Additionally, the concept of MCU (Austin & Jones, 2016; Pinheiro & Nordstrand Berg, 2017) assumes that geographical distance challenges HE governance. We suggest our research offers an empirical case for gathering insights for this.

3.3

Stakeholder Theory

This section deals with stakeholder theory, its underlying imperatives, and the problem of stakeholder identification and location. Further, stakeholder theory is critically reflected. Finally, a conclusion presents the insights gathered for our research.

3.3.1

On Stakeholders and Higher Education Governance

We have already learned from the debates surrounding the third mission and HE governance that economic expectations were placed on higher education (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b; Krücken & Meier, 2006; Krücken, 2013; Leišyt˙e & Sigl, 2018). This resulted, for example, in the new or renewed relationships between higher education institutions and external stakeholders (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). As a consequence, new governance approaches were imposed on

3.3 Stakeholder Theory

121

the universities, which included a permanent review and further development of their business concept as well as a professionalization of the management, whereby one may conclude universities also operate a kind of value creation (de Boer, Enders, & Leišyt˙e, 2007). Thus, one may conclude that a management’s awareness of stakeholders’ interests is crucial for the success of a university as well. Consequently, stakeholder theory may be a valuable instrument that accompanies university management through the purposeful perception, assessment, and analysis of stakeholder capacities (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). Thus, stakeholder theory is applied to gather a thicker description of how relationships with stakeholders are managed and seek answers for how to deal with the nature of relationships between organizations and stakeholders (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & Colle, 2010, p. 287). In this section, we present and discuss stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) as well as the issue of stakeholder identification. To deal with stakeholder identification and location in the context of our research, we present and discuss, first, the stakeholder salience approach (Mitchell et al., 1997), and second, functioning heuristically, we discuss the Viable System Model (Beer, 1984, 2008). The discussion of theories and concepts is always focused on our research. Finally, we subject stakeholder theory and the accompanying concepts to critical reflection.

3.3.2

Exploring Stakeholder Theory

The concept of stakeholder theory by Freeman (1984, 2010) emerged in the field of business studies and has become a significant theory over recent years. The theory stands for the enhancement of conceptual thinking about organizations of all kinds. It has been used for a “redescription” to better understand key characteristics of most of the stakeholder relationships within a collaborative framework and a particular governance setting (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 289). Freeman (1984, 2010) defines stakeholders as follows: “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (p. 46). Further, Freeman (1984, 2010) postulated that managers have to consider different stakeholder demands to manage their associated organization successfully concerning its general goals. Austin and Jones (2016) argued for higher education that “this current stakeholder influence model is based on the economic function of universities and their expanded social obligations” (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 43). This provides a coherent justification to use stakeholder theory for our thesis. In addition, the term “stake” has been understood as a share, interest, or investment that a certain party attributes to an entity (Freeman, 1984).

122

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

Stakeholder theory has was developed against the backdrop of change in the US-American business sector in the 1960s. A group of researchers at the Stanford Research Institute attempted to find a response for enterprises in their changing external and internal environment. At that time, the two key drivers of change were competition on the market (external change), and employed managers replaced direct management by the owners (internal change) (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 52). Consequently, the ideas of stakeholder theory have been brought together in Freeman’s (1984) landmark book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Freeman, 1984). To supplement the picture of stakeholder theory, we highlight the original concept of stakeholder theory by Freeman (1984, 2010). Freeman (1984, 2010) has linked his theory with the idea of the ideal strategic management process as an overall control system, comprising the following core elements: setting the direction, implementing strategic programs, and providing a budget. From a managerial perspective, stakeholder theory can gather information from “individuals” or “groups of individuals” who can affect or are affected by the achievement of an organization’s goals. One may conclude that this gathered information improves the strategic management process (Freeman, 1984, p. 83). In addition, we depict an understanding of the philosophy behind stakeholder theory according to Freeman (1984, 2010). His perception centers around the search for a solution to the problem of understanding business better and how to attain a common idea of a business. Further, business is about creating value for different groups of interest, and it is about moving in the same direction. This line of argument included the joint interests underlined in a business’s core process of value creation and direction. In contrast, it was argued that business in the past forty years had been interpreted and dominated by paying too much attention to accounting and finance issues. Freeman (1984) designated this the “physics of money” and depicted the metaphor of “business as a human institution,” which is “embedded in society.” Therefore, his stakeholder theory offers an appropriate framework for exploration, including people and relationships in a business that are taking part in the process of value creation. The application of “business as a human institution embedded in society” has been the core idea behind stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984, p. 52). Freeman et al. (2010) postulated that stakeholder theory had been used, for example, within the domain of public administration as a tool to analyze stakeholders within a given normative frame to reach certain goals. Thus, stakeholder analysis has been carried out to map and categorize these according to group membership, power, and involvement (Freeman et al., 2010, pp. 177–178). This

3.3 Stakeholder Theory

123

forms the link to using stakeholder theory for our research. We argue that universities mostly belong to the public sector, and as strategic actors contribute through their teaching and research functions to the economy and society (third mission). We assume that the higher education sector, following the entrepreneurial model, reflects the described aspects of value creation and strategic management quite well. This would justify the application of the theory to our research case.

3.3.3

Problem of Stakeholder Identification and Possible Solutions

An appropriate determination of who is or is not a stakeholder that may affect or be affected by an organization and its activities constitutes a problem. This problem has also been recorded by Freeman (1984, 2010): to him, the question of defining stakeholders is a matter of practice because business and strategy are practice (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 26). The problem requires a resonant response, and literature on stakeholder theory provides a plethora of analytical concepts to identify and describe the important stakeholder groups of an organization. Hence, there are appropriate strategies to build on concepts of stakeholder identification. In most cases, they remain descriptive. In a few instances, normative concepts appear. Further, to identify and describe primary or “definitional” stakeholders, it is significant to take a closer look at the value creation process. Freeman (1984, 2010) concluded that the definition of stakeholder groups depends on the nature of a business and its operational processes at the core: first, it has been essential to understanding how the value creation process works, and second to understand who those stakeholder groups are engaged in it and gain an understanding of them. He also highlighted that stakeholders are, in fact, real people, and the value creation process addresses them with the promise of a product or a service or both in a combination (Freeman, 1984, p. 54). We record at this point two insights: first, business-model-dependency of stakeholder identification, and second, individuals or groups of individuals (people) associated with a business. Further, Freeman (1984, 2010) postulated that more cases were required with a stronger focus on the aspects that explore stakeholders and managers prospect more carefully. At the outset, a distinction has been made between internal and external stakeholder groups. This distinction scheme was also provided by Freeman (1984, 2010): internal stakeholder groups of a business were represented by staff, management, and owners while customers, suppliers, and investors counted as external stakeholder groups.

124

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

In the case of a university, the internal stakeholder groups are represented by professors and students (see Chapter 2 of this thesis). The government, nongovernmental organizations, private enterprises or private citizens, and so-called interface groups represent external stakeholder groups (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 42). In addition, stakeholder groups have been defined by law in the German system of higher education (which also highlights their normative nature). Regarding the literature on governance of higher education, we rephrase and summarize core ideas, which have been introduced within this section: first, stakeholders by definition of higher education institutions can be discovered by examining their specific process of value creation. And second, the “businessmodel-dependency” can be derived from individual core processes of teaching and research of an individual higher education institution. To illustrate this: in the case of CSPs, the process of value creation could be placed in the area of teaching and a jointly shaped curriculum (See section on CSPs). Finally, one has to note that representatives from the corporate world (industry) appear as a specific (external) stakeholder group in this process. Thus, this stakeholder group is directly associated with the “business” of CSPs. The next subsection discusses concepts of stakeholder identification that address the problems outlined and deliver solution strategies to deal with them.

3.3.3.1 Stakeholder Salience Approach Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) referred to Freeman’s (1984, 2010) stakeholder theory and refined it towards a form of stakeholder ranking or a typology of stakeholders. Their concept ranks stakeholders according to their salience and influence potential (Logermann, 2014). Furthermore, the stakeholder salience approach attempts to define why managers prefer certain stakeholder relationships. Further, the stakeholder salience approach seems to be suitable to characterize stakeholders in higher education (Leišyt˙e & Westerheijden, 2014). The stakeholder salience approach distinguishes three criteria to locate meaningful stakeholder groups and interests, which create a hierarchy of stakeholders. The stakeholder salience approach propose(s) that classes of stakeholders can be identified by their possession or attributed possession of one, two, or all three of the following attributes: (1) the stakeholder’s power to influence the firm, (2) the legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the firm, and (3) the urgency of the stakeholder’s claim on the firm. (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 854).

3.3 Stakeholder Theory

125

In summary, the three defined stakeholder attributes are power, legitimacy, and urgency. Power is described as follows: “Therefore, a party to a relationship has power, to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship.” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 865). Legitimacy is described as “socially accepted and expected structures or behaviors” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 866). Urgency comprises a dynamic element and is defined as the “degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention.” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 867). “For mapping the relationships with their external and internal communities (constituencies, stakeholders, etc.) these three attributes can be of use for institutional managers.” (Jongbloed et al., 2008a). The authors provided a stakeholder categorization via a proposition of these three attributes (Logermann, 2014; Mitchell et al., 1997). The potential combinations of attributes defined types of stakeholder groups. The approach also offers the opportunity for a manager to decide on the relevance of a certain stakeholder group. Therefore, managers have been ascribed an active role within stakeholder theory. Consequently, the perception of the managers to which stakeholder group to pay attention to constitutes a crucial aspect. Mitchell, Agle & Wood (1997) depicted a Venn diagram to illustrate their eight “qualitative classes of stakeholders” concerning their proposed major attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency (see Figure 3.11). By assigning one, two, and three attributes, up to seven stakeholder types emerge. Furthermore, three stakeholder classes can be generated. Depending on the relation to the number of assigned attributes, there is a distinction between, first, “latent stakeholders,” concerning the evaluation of one attribute and the result “no influence;” second, “salient stakeholders,” encompassing the evaluation of two characteristics resulting in “limited influence;” and third, “definitive’ stakeholders,” containing the evaluation of three attributes resulting in “influence.” Table 3.1 outlines and summarizes the analysis scheme. For the case study in our thesis, the analysis was carried out using the stakeholder salience approach. The Stakeholder Salience Approach is a thoughtful and useful approach because of its clear criteria-based approach. With the help of the criteria, a clear identification of salient stakeholders is possible in a very practical way. This was the decisive factor for choosing this approach for our thesis. The results of the analysis conducted for our research can be found in the electronic supplementary material (Appendix).

126

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

POWER 4 Dominant Stakeholder

1 Dormant Stakeholder

LEGITIMACY 2 Discretionary Stakeholder

5 Dangerous Stakeholder

7 Definitive Stakeholder

6 Dependent Stakeholder 8 Nonstakeholder

3 Demanding Stakeholder

URGENCY

Note. Based on Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874.

Fig. 3.11 Stakeholder typology with one, two, or three attributes Tab. 3.1 Summary of stakeholder categorization Stakeholder class

Assignment of attributes

Influence on multi-campus university governance

Latent Stakeholder (One attribute)

(1) Power = Dormant Stakeholder (2) Legitimacy = Discretionary Stakeholder (3) Urgency = Demanding Stakeholder

No influence

Salient Stakeholder (Two attributes)

(4) Power + Legitimacy = Dominant Stakeholder (5) Power + Urgency = Dangerous Stakeholder (6) Legitimacy + Urgency = Dependent Stakeholder

Limited influence

Definitive Stakeholder (Three attributes)

(7) Power + Legitimacy + Urgency = Definitive Stakeholder

Influence

Note. Author’s representation following Mitchell et al., 1997.

3.3 Stakeholder Theory

127

3.3.3.2 Viable System Model as Heuristic Concept for Stakeholder Location In addition to the problem of identifying salient stakeholders, the problem of locating stakeholders in the context of a multi-campus university still needs to be solved in this thesis. The Viable System Model (VSM) by Stafford Beer (1984, 2008) has analytical power concerning the multi-level research of organizations (Harwood, 2016, p. 2). Thus, the VSM model has been used in this thesis as a heuristic concept to determine the location of stakeholders. Beer (1984, 2008) described his model as a holistic model involving the complex interactions of five identifiable but not separate subsystems (Beer, 2008). The VSM model was developed in the 1950s as a tool for dealing with topics on organizational structures. Further, VSM refers to system theory and has been inspired by how the human brain coordinates muscles and organs (Beer, 1984). With the guidance of the VSM model, it can be studied how governance mechanisms have been distributed horizontally and vertically in the realm of organizational complexity (Harwood, 2016, p. 4). Thus, the VSM model functions as a supplementary mechanism in the context of stakeholder identification and their location within an organizational structure. We assume that VSM contributes to the positioning of stakeholders within our research, which refers to the empirical case of a multi-campus university. To better understand and access VSM, the model has been applied to our study for illustrative purposes. The VSM model distinguishes five separated but interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem contains and carries out one main function of the organization. We assume that stakeholders can also be assigned within such a subsystem. Further, Beer (1984, 2008) noted that each organization and its embedded suborganizational units could be mapped and analyzed according to the functions of each subsystem (System 1 to System 5) which he designated as “recursion of the viable system” (Beer, 2008, p. 2). In the following, Systems 1 to 5 are characterized and briefly described for the case of higher education. System 1 contains the daily operations of an organization and focuses on its value creation (operational function) (Beer, 2008, p. 21). In the case of higher education, this would refer to the core processes of teaching and research and a chair or an institute shaping the basic units of the organization. System 2 is needed if an organization possesses various co-existing operational units that have to be coordinated, or, in other words, where the coordination problem needs to be solved (coordination function) (Beer, 2008, p. 41). In our example of higher education, a faculty, department, or school might constitute basic coordination units. System 3 executes tasks of coordination and accountability for Systems 1 and 2 and represents the level of an organization’s top management of (operational

128

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

management) (Beer, 2008, p. 43). Applied to the higher education sector, the rectorate, presidium, or a university executive board might represent the function of System 3. Systems 4 and 5 put the relations of the organizations with the environment at the center. System 4 refers to the interactions between the executive board and the supervisory board in the case of an industrial organization (strategic management function) (Beer, 2008, p. 107). In the case of a university, the committee system at the top (a senate and a university council) might meet this function. System 5 deals with normative issues such as ownership or responsible bodies and has been illustrated by industrial organizations where mission statements or stock corporation laws determine this function (normative management function) (Beer, 2008, p. 125). In the event of higher education, this function is addressed through higher education legislation and the supporting authorities such as the science ministries. For the purposes of this thesis, an analysis following the VSM model was carried out to locate the internal and external stakeholders of CSPs in the context of a multi-campus university.

3.3.4

Critical Reflection on Stakeholder Theory

Rowley (1997) has provided an implicit critique on stakeholder theory, claiming that the theory was primarily limited to the classification of single stakeholders and ignored aspects of network and simultaneity (Rowley, 1997, p. 906). We remember that the original stakeholder theory was provided as a static and rulebased construct that focuses on dyadic relationships and ignores networks and structures. Hence, Rowley (1997) depicted a “theory of stakeholder influence” to supplement and enhance stakeholder theory by providing an analytical tool that focuses on capturing the simultaneous influences of several stakeholders (Rowley, 1997, p. 907). Further, Wieland (2008) emphasized the inconsistent definition of stakeholders, and according to his conclusion, the identification and visualization of stakeholders remain incomplete (Wieland, 2008, p. 17). In addition, an extensive exploration of critical voices and misleading interpretations of the stakeholder approach can be found in Phillips, Freeman & Wicks (2003). The authors argued that stakeholder theory constitutes a basis for justifying managerial opportunism rooted in the shareholder value notion and the consequence of information asymmetry within stakeholder theory. They argued further that accountability shows a more extensive scale within stakeholder theory. Thus, stakeholder theory would

3.3 Stakeholder Theory

129

be incapable of contributing to the goal-setting process; in a short-term oriented economic notion, stakeholder theory has been classified as not capable of contributing to goal setting (Phillips et al., 2003). Another well-meaning misinterpretation of stakeholder theory can be found in the notion of treating each stakeholder group as equal. In practice, stakeholder management is about those groups who have a “stake,” and the management’s task lies in balancing these interests and using them for the direction setting process to reach their organizations’ goals. Thus, the treatment of each stakeholder group is, therefore, a decision of the management and not one of equality. To sum up, Phillips et al. (2003) depicted their understanding of stakeholder theory as “a theory of organizational management and ethics” (Phillips et al., 2003), which is in line with Freeman’s efforts to link his stakeholder theory to corporate social responsibility (CSR) approaches (Freeman, 1994; Freeman et al., 2010).

3.3.5

Conclusion

Three insights of stakeholder theory are relevant for our research. First, the theory is concerned with stakeholders and their possible effects on an organization’s goals that the management has to consider to fulfill these (Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2010). In other words, the effect on an organization’s goals might also be understood as exerting influence by stakeholders on the organization and impacting the organization’s governance. In this thesis, the CSPs and the stakeholders involved therein offer the context for studying the influences they exert on the governance of these types of programs. Stakeholders have become more important for universities due to NPM and resulting managerialism bringing in various stakeholders from outside into the internal governance of universities (Jongbloed et al., 2008b; Krücken & Meier, 2006; Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012). We assume that the economic expectations raised at the university resulted in increased accountability to society, which was reflected in the higher weight put on external stakeholders’ voices in steering the university (which has become evident in the third mission context, for example). Thus, stakeholder theory enables us to systematically record stakeholder relations and the resulting influences and their effects on HE governance in our studied case. Second, the theory entails the problem of stakeholder identification and emphasizes a careful definition of stakeholders depending on the business model (Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2010). Further, in this context, it was also emphasized that the management could not consider all stakeholders equally but should remind itself of the balancing act between stakeholder interests. The stakeholder

130

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

salience approach proved useful, as it is a tool to identify the most salient stakeholders through attributes (Mitchell et al., 1997). We assume this allows us to identify the most salient stakeholders in the case of the CSPs. In addition, we consider the VSM model (Beer, 1984, 2008), which stems from management science and cybernetics, and assists us in locating the most salient stakeholders in the context of a multi-campus university. Finally, stakeholder theory stems from business studies and is linked to strategic management, which is pertinent for our research as the third mission reflects the transformation of the university from corporate actor providing added value to a knowledge society through its teaching and research function (Jongbloed et al., 2008b, p. 306).

3.4

Derivation of a Theoretical Model

The first three sections of this chapter discussed conceptualizations and theories, enabling us to understand third mission governance. This section brings these together and derives a theoretical model presented and discussed below. The model incorporates conceptualizations on the third mission and higher education governance as well as stakeholder theory. Our theoretical model has been applied to the phenomenon of CSPs in the German HE system as a particular empirical case for a teaching-oriented third mission. We used the model as an analytical framework to understand how stakeholders influence third mission governance in the case of CSPs. Thus, the model has guided the course of our investigation. Figure 3.12 shows our theoretical model in a graphical representation4 . The theoretical model can be described as follows, starting with the core: the CSPs are located at the center of the model, following the definition explicated in Chapter 2 (Krone, 2015a). The context for this has been the sectors of universities of applied sciences as well as vocational training because CSPs have been identified as a hybrid format (Graf, 2013a; Lackner, 2016; Thies, 2015; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a), combining elements from both sectors in higher education. We based our research on the practice-integrated format of CSPs, also known as the original format (Brünner et al., 2016; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). In addition, the topic of CSPs included the involvement of external stakeholders (from industry, social institutions, and health care facilities) (Gensch, 2016; Krone, 2015a; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019). This subarea, in turn, formed a theoretical “unit of investigation I.” 4

It should also be mentioned that the graphical representation of this model has been inspired by the General Management Model (Malik, 2008a).

3.4 Derivation of a Theoretical Model

131

Stakeholder Theory Governance of Higher Education Third Mission

Stakeholders as actors exert influence

Cooperative Study Programs Vocational Education and Training System (dual VET)

Higher Education System: Universities of Applied Sciences

Third Mission

.

Governance of Higher Education Stakeholder Theory

Note. Author’s representation (2019).

Fig. 3.12 Theoretical model derived from the concepts and theories guides the course of the investigation

Second, the thematic circle of the third mission follows. Based on our literature analysis, we developed a definition of the third mission referring to its teaching orientation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Jongbloed et al., 2008a; Laredo, 2007a; Pavlin, 2016). This included the main insight that universities generate, through their core functions of teaching and research, relevant outputs for the economy and society, involving external stakeholders in this process (Jongbloed et al., 2008a; Roessler et al., 2015). To better understand this, we used three conceptualizations of the third mission: first, the Triple Helix helped to understand how interactions between university, industry, and government drive CSPs (“the innovation”) (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020; Champenois & Etzkowitz, 2018;

132

3

Conceptual and Theoretical Considerations

Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). We assumed that the actors and their roles could be identified in the specific CSP-Triple-Helix. This should provide insights into the contribution to CSPs (concerning the meso and micro levels) and allow us to gather insights into those actors who exerted influence on CSPs. Second, the concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS) supplemented our research perspective and should assist us to better understand the role of the university in a regional (and national) context, namely its outward orientation (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Cooke, 2001; Cooke & Morgan, 1994; Tödtling & Trippl, 2011). Third, the Entrepreneurial University concept helps us better understand the role the university plays in the third mission context from an internal perspective (Clark, 1998a; Etzkowitz, 2008; Laredo, 2007a; Sam & van der Sijde, 2014). This subarea, in turn, formed a theoretical “unit of investigation II.” Third, the circle on HE governance includes a working definition of higher education governance (Austin & Jones, 2016; OECD, 2008) as well as heuristic concepts (Austin & Jones, 2016; Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007; Clark, 1983; de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007; Pinheiro & Berg, 2016) and points to an understanding of the university as stakeholder organization (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007) and of HE governance in the dimensions of structures, processes, and relationships (Austin & Jones, 2016; OECD, 2003, 2008). This subarea formed a theoretical “unit of investigation III.” Fourth, the circle including stakeholder theory is concerned with stakeholders and their influence on achieving an organizations goals, such as a higher education institution (Beer, 1984, 2008; Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2010; Jongbloed et al., 2008a; Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012; Mitchell et al., 1997). Thus, we used stakeholder theory and accompanying concepts to understand the agency and role various stakeholders from university, industry, and government play in the process of strategic direction setting for the institution (meso level) and study programs in operation (micro level). We, therefore, assumed that an understanding of stakeholder influences could be gained. This subarea formed a theoretical “unit of investigation IV.” We conclude this chapter with a critical reflection of the proposed theoretical model. First of all, it should be noted that all the conceptualizations and theories considered were primarily based on an economic view. This could, of course, be criticized as a one-sided perspective. However, we argued that the combination of the different concepts and theories was aligned to the economic function of the subject of investigation. It fit CSPs, and this helped to gain a deeper understanding

3.4 Derivation of a Theoretical Model

133

for our research trajectory. Second, all concepts and theories were related to the interdisciplinary research field of higher education research. For example, higher education research has been mostly based in the academic disciplines of sociology, education, and economics. We considered the interdisciplinary approach to be appropriate to investigate the practical phenomenon of CSPs in the light of a teaching-oriented third mission. Chapter 4 presents methods, data, and evaluation strategies used in the present research in more detail. In addition, we discuss scientific quality criteria and reflect on our role as higher education researchers in relation to the research project.

4

Methodological Considerations

This chapter includes three main sections. The first section (4.1) deals with general considerations on the chosen research approach. The second section (4.2) deals with the operationalization of the main components of the research question. Finally, the third section (4.3) deals with the chosen research design, case selection, data collection, and data analysis and concludes with a discussion on the research limitations of our study.

4.1

Multi-Level Analysis

The present study followed a single-case study design. It pursued the goal of gathering an in-depth understanding of the governing of CSPs and the role of external and internal stakeholders. The thesis’s main objective was to understand how internal and external stakeholders exert influence on the third mission. In general, a university as an organization is situated in a particular national higher education and science system. Hence, university structures differ considerably from country to country. In Germany, these structures also vary from one federal state to another. Consequently, this impacts the internal organization of a university (Teichler, 2008). Therefore, we considered aspects of a multi-level analysis for our thesis. The aim was to gain a holistic understanding of mutual dependencies and influences. Accordingly, this thesis covered three levels: the macro level, the institutional level (meso level), and the program level (micro level). The macro level referred Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_4). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_4

135

136

4

Methodological Considerations

to the German higher education system in general and the specific features of Baden-Wuerttemberg’s1 higher education system (state level). The analysis of the UAS examined in our thesis focused on two levels, namely the meso level (the chosen university of applied sciences as the organization as a whole) and the micro level (the program level of CSPs carried out at a campus of the chosen UAS). Figure 4.1 illustrates this multi-level analysis approach.

Higher Education System (Context) Case-study institution (Case) Embedded Units of Analysis

Macro-level

Meso-level

Micro-level

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 4.1 A multi-level analysis approach of our thesis

4.2

Operationalization

In this section, we present the working definitions and operationalization of constructs used in this thesis. As a starting point, we refer to our main research

1

In addition, it should also be mentioned that a federal state like Baden-Wuerttemberg would be addressed as a region in the sense of social science research. Paradoxically, however, this is contradicted by the fact that, viewed from a national level, federal states are in themselves divided into regions. This refers to regional geographic areas that form a kind of sublevel within a region as a whole; and this is usually the geographic position of a campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the multi-campus university.

4.2 Operationalization

137

question, as stated in the last section of the first chapter, which reads as follows: how do stakeholders influence the governance of the third mission at the multi-campus university in the case of CSPs? The theoretical chapter identified a suitable definition of university governance for measuring the constructs pointed out by the research question. The following constructs needed to be captured: first, stakeholder groups and their influence possibilities; second, governance of third mission; third, multi-campus university and, fourth, CSPs as a particular case. The identification of internal and external stakeholder groups for our dissertation was built on a conceptualization of internal and external stakeholders for universities in the field of higher education research (Erhardt, 2011; Jongbloed et al., 2008a). Based on documents on the university of applied sciences used in our dissertation, we then carried out an analysis grounded on the stakeholder salience concept (Mitchell et al., 1997). As a result, we identified the following core stakeholders for our thesis2 : professors (university) and students as internal stakeholders and representatives of FPOs and NPOs (industry) as well as experts from the sphere of higher education policy and the Ministry of Science (government) as external stakeholders. Our choice was guided by the objective to provide a 360-degree-view of CSPs and the underlying core mechanisms of third mission coordination. The notion of the stakeholder group of professors took into account the dual nature of the position. They occupy, first, their traditional roles as academic professionals and are part of an academic discipline (e.g., business administration). Second, we referred to professors as higher education managers holding temporally limited functions or offices (e.g., program coordinator, dean, president). In addition, our consideration also included representatives from the stakeholder group of professors who became a member of one or several university committees through election or appointment. Further, the stakeholder group of representatives from FPOs and NPOs included persons who carried responsibility for matters of CSPs (e.g., private companies) or occupational fields. They became part of one or several university committees through election or appointment and thus actively participated in the coordination of CSPs. Furthermore, students as a stakeholder group included student representatives from student unions (i.e., official student representation). Student representatives became members of one or several university committees through election or 2

The electronic supplementary material (Appendix) contains detailed information on our stakeholder identification and selection process.

138

4

Methodological Considerations

appointment and thus participated in the governance of the university’s third mission activities. Finally, the stakeholder group of representatives of government and policy areas consisted of persons who were either officially responsible for CSPs or acted as experts in consulting and lobbying for cooperative higher education. They could also have been appointed to university committees. From an etymological perspective, the term “influence” means affecting the development or behavior of someone or something (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It is also closely related to the concept of “power,” which is etymologically understood as the ability to influence the behavior of others or the course of events (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Therefore, we formally defined the notion of “exertion of influence” by a stakeholder group through their membership in a governance-related university committee. Through their formal mandates, stakeholders participated in the university’s decision-making and negotiation processes through committees. Therefore, in our understanding, they had the possibility to exert influence on the course of CSPs. In addition, internal stakeholders also exerted influence by fulfilling the university’s mission through their daily actions. Finally, at an informal level, we subsumed the exertion of influence concerning governance under “communication relationships” with and between official committee members or members of the university and third parties within and outside regular meetings of those committees. Thereby, issues or concerns—such as training needs or coverage of teaching capacities—are voiced. We continue with our understanding of the third mission and its conceptual dimensions. In general, the term “third mission” entails a mutual exchange relationship between a higher education institution and an institution (from a different sector) in their immediate surrounding (orientation at regional level), for example, an enterprise or social institution (which we termed for-profit and non-profit organization, or FPO and NPO). Furthermore, this exchange relationship was associated directly with the higher education institutions’ core missions of research or teaching. In the case of this thesis, we operationalized “CSPs” as a particular manifestation of the third mission (Roessler et al., 2015, p. 15). We illustrate our argumentation with the following example: curricula for CSPs (bachelor level) are developed and shaped jointly through a mutual exchange relationship between representatives from university (internal stakeholders) and representatives from FPOs and NPOs (external stakeholders). This resulted in a clear connection to the core mission of the university, namely teaching. It also included the active involvement of external stakeholders in development issues, strategic matters, and the daily business of CSPs (Laredo, 2007b, p. 10).

4.2 Operationalization

139

Further, the term “governance” appears diffuse and complex and therefore offers various ways of interpretation. It is often associated with an idea of steering and control or “the art of government” (Mayntz, 2008). Though it does not meet the multidimensional nature of the term, we nevertheless define governance from the point of view of business studies which incorporates issues of steering and control (Malik, 2008b). Thus, we understand the term governance as the way an organization is managed, including the underlying systems enabling this. Consequently, we operationalized governance in the dimensions of processes, structures, and relationships, derived from our selected working definition of higher education governance (OECD, 2008). Accordingly, we defined the governance dimension of processes as follows: in etymological terms, a process is understood as a totality of actions that affect each other within a system (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). The discipline of business studies defines a process as a totality of individual activities conducted to reach a predefined goal (Nagel et al., 2020, p. 376). Hence, a process refers to the nature of steering and control associated with the process of decision-making and negotiation (Bess & Dee, 2008b, p. 589). In the understanding put forward in this thesis, negotiation and decision-making refer to all matters concerning CSPs. Furthermore, in general, a decision-making and negotiation process determines the procedure of a decision inside an organization. In addition, we also distinguish between centralized and decentralized decisions and strategic and operational decisions (Bess & Dee, 2008b, p. 597). A decision not only contains the resolution itself but also includes the path towards the result. Therefore, five phases of a decision-making process were distinguished (following the understanding of decision theory in the economic sciences) (Bess & Dee, 2008b, p. 594): first, problem formulation; second, specification of the target system; third; evaluation of decision alternatives; fourth, choice of a given option (decision-making); and fifth, implementation and performance review. Those five phases are interdependently connected. Hence, the process of decision-making and negotiation is part of the procedural organization of an institution. Furthermore, a process can be described with a metaphor such as “life cycle model” (e.g., product life cycle) (Nagel et al., 2020; Specht, 2020), a common model in business administration. Based on this notion, CSPs can also be mapped in a life cycle model. The decision-making and negotiation described above point to all decision-relevant activities. Thus, we have operationalized the development processes that are typical for a cooperative study program based on a life cycle model. The first stage is the development and implementation of new CSPs. It referred to methods and procedures utilized to develop new curricula for CSPs with the goal to establish and offer new degree courses.

140

4

Methodological Considerations

The second stage is the regular operation of (existing) CSPs that dealt with methods and procedures undertaken to maintain existing CSPs (e.g., tracing the objective to fill up the study program groups with new students). The third stage is the (re-)accreditation of CSPs (this applies to both existing and new study programs) and referred to methods and procedures which sought to update the teaching contents and teaching methods (which could be understood as innovation). In addition, actions in this dimension aim for the institution to stay in business and gain new students. The fourth stage is the elimination or termination of CSPs and dealt with methods and procedures carried out to stop existing CSPs, for example, due to insufficient demand. The following section is devoted to a more detailed definition of the governance dimension of “structures.” In an etymological understanding, structures are understood as the ways in which parts of a system are organized or have been put together (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Staying close to this definition, we understand it from a prospect of organization theory in the economic sciences. This concerns the hierarchical organization and structural organization of a profit or non-profit organization, for example (Schewe, 2020; Thommen, 2020). In other words, a structure is also understood as patterns of relationships between elements of a system that remain stable over time (Bess & Dee, 2008a, p. 100). For the thesis, we have operationalized structures as follows: from a practical understanding, we referred to “formal spots” of decision making and negotiation on all matters concerning CSPs. For example, this included university committees composed of representatives from the university’s stakeholder groups. The representatives of the stakeholder groups have become members of those committees through election or appointment. With the term university committee, we addressed the three “standard committees,” consisting of the senate, university council, and university leadership board (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 12). Those three standard committees constitute central locations of decision-making. We also referred to formal organizational units dedicated to fulfilling the mission (e.g., providing CSPs). These include, for example, faculties, study programs, or supporting administrative units at a university. Finally, we return to the definition of the governance dimension of relationships and specify it (Bess & Dee, 2008b, p. 340). Relationships have been established at an institutional level (university as an organization); therefore, we distinguished three types: first, “legitimization relationships” concerning the election or appointment of internal and external stakeholders into a standard committee of the university. Second, “communication relationships” including any communication among and between members of the different stakeholder groups. Thirdly, “acceptance relationships” containing the recognition of the adopted

4.3 Research Design

141

roles in the context of university committees inside and outside the higher education institution. Finally, we also subsumed under relationships the daily activities (and the underlying exchange relationships) of internal and external stakeholders to fulfill the university mission (i.e., to deliver CSPs). To sum up, we interpreted governance of the third mission as steering and control of CSPs. This entailed an involvement of internal and external stakeholders in decision-making and negotiation on CSPs and the implementation of CSPs. The processes of decision-making and negotiation took place in a system of university committees. Furthermore, at a formal level, internal and external stakeholders exerting influence took place through the membership of those groups in one or several committees inside the university’s system of committees. Finally, at an informal level, we understood exerting influence through communication relationships between committee members inside and outside official board meetings and between committee members and third parties outside regular meetings of the panels.

4.3

Research Design

4.3.1

Single-Case Study Design

In this section, we present the structure of the research design chosen in our study. We have carried out a single-case study following the concepts of case study research (Yin, 2014). Using the DHBW as a singular case (with a range of subcases) for an intense qualitative analysis, we pursued the goal to gather an in-depth understanding of third mission governance for CSPs. Hence, the singlecase design was considered suitable for the investigation (Seawright & Gerring, 2008, p. 296). Our “empirical inquiry” investigated a contemporary phenomenon (CSPs) in its real-life context, which was proposed as useful for dealing with one of the research questions (how do stakeholders influence third mission governance in the case of CSPs) (Yin, 2014, p. 16). Germany’s higher education research literature elaborated on the case chosen as a “prime example” of CSPs (Krone, 2015a; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a; Zhang, 2016). Consequently, our selected case brought together being a “useful variation of theoretical interest” and “representative example,” which had supported our decision to choose this case (Gerring, 2007, p. 101). In addition, the institution singled out for the present case study represented the largest provider of CSPs in Germany (Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019), which fulfilled the single-case design rationale of a “relevant case” (Yin, 2014, p. 52).

142

4

Methodological Considerations

Furthermore, Yin (2014) provided a classification of basic types of designs for case studies. In our research, we assigned the single-case to “type two,” concerning a single-case with embedded designs (Yin, 2014, p. 50). In addition, a range of subcases was embedded within this single case. Hence, the primary unit of analysis was represented by an organization as a whole, further accompanied by suborganizational analytical units. Our study determined these suborganizational units by their physical existence in a geographic area, their own administration, and autonomous academic existence. For the present research project, a subcase was simultaneously understood as a campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the multi-campus university and as an autonomous organizational unit in general. This design provided us two levels of analysis, the meso level (institutional level) and the micro level (program level) of the case-study organization (DHBW). The following figure (see Figure 4.2) illustrates and summarizes the general design of our case study.

Context

Case Embedded Unit of Analysis I

Embedded Unit of Analysis II

Embedded Unit of Analysis III

Note. Author’s representation based on Yin, 2014, p. 50.

Fig. 4.2 Embedded (multiple units of analysis) single-case design

4.3 Research Design

143

A single-case study with embedded units allows a cross-unit analysis. The “Embedded Unit of Analysis I” in our case study refers to the “headquarters” of the multi-campus university. From this viewpoint, data from the meso level (institutional level) was collected to gain a deeper understanding of the governance of the third mission. Furthermore, the “Embedded Unit of Analysis II” and “Embedded Unit of Analysis III” incorporate a campus located in a geographical area (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the multi-campus university and thus represent the program level. Intending to build contrasting subcases and a “useful variation” addressing the governance of the third mission, we refer to Laredo’s (2007) argumentation on the third mission that “it is the university [in our case a campus of the multi-campus university] which addresses local demands of society and serves therefore local labor markets” (Laredo, 2007b, p. 7). In our case research, the Embedded Unit of Analysis II constitutes a campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the multi-campus university in a metropolitan (geographical) area, the Embedded Unit of Analysis III a campus (or location) of the multi-campus university in a rural (geographical) area. In the context of the third mission, the literature repeatedly emphasized the regional reference as an essential component. Therefore, in our eyes, the dichotomy “metropolis—rural area” seems to be helpful for the required formation of contrasts (Seawright & Gerring, 2008) for our methodology. Thus, we ensure a useful variation of our theoretical interest (governance of the third mission in the case of a multi-campus university) and emphasize the micro level (program level). Referring to Yin (2014), the case study should facilitate literal replication and theoretical replication. Literal replication addresses the prediction of similar results, and theoretical replication concerns a prediction of contrasting results but for predictable reasons. In addition, a pitfall of an embedded design is to focus only on suborganizational units, thereby possibly missing the larger unit of analysis. To prevent this, we introduced the Embedded Unit of Analysis I at the meso level, as already mentioned. In turn, suborganizational units often provide the basis for an extensive analysis enhancing insights into the single case (Yin, 2014, pp. 55–56). Concluding this subsection, the following figure illustrates our single-case study with Embedded Units of Analysis in particular (see Figure 4.3):

144

4

Methodological Considerations

Context

Case Embedded Unit of Analysis I

Embedded Unit of Analysis II

Embedded Unit of Analysis III

Note. Author’s representation referring to Yin, 2014, p. 50. Fig. 4.3 Units of Analysis

Figure 4.3 illustrates the research design with embedded units of analysis as well as the levels of analysis. The grey circles surrounded by a greater circle delineate the levels of analysis. The grey circles represent organizational units or subunits. The greater circle stands for the entire organization of the single-case study.

4.3.2

Case Selection

German higher education literature has called the selected case study institution, the DHBW, a “prime example” of third mission in the case of CSPs (Krone, 2015a; Mordhorst & Nickel, 2019; Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a; Zhang, 2016). Moreover, the case selection was guided by the fact that, with a few exceptions, the university of applied sciences3 type is underrepresented in higher education 3

The Federal Statistical Office assigns the DHBW the category of university of applied sciences. Consequently, the statistical findings provide a reference point for the fact that the case of Baden-Wuerttemberg is an empirically representative case for the type of university of applied sciences.

4.3 Research Design

145

research literature (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 12). Furthermore, the case study covered the aspect of a multi-campus institution that is equally underrepresented in the literature on higher education governance so far (Pinheiro, Charles, et al., 2017, p. 2). Additionally, the selection of the case was primarily influenced by two factors: the global phenomenon of the third mission within the higher education sector and the growth of CSPs as a characteristic phenomenon of the German higher education system, representing an example of the third mission in the case of teaching. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the exemplary status is underscored by a salient number of quantitative and qualitative studies on the national and international levels. Another reason for the presented case selection was the accessibility of data, persons, document materials, and profound knowledge of the specific area of the third mission and CSPs. As a higher education researcher working in the higher education institution being researched, the author of the present dissertation had unique access to information, respondents, and thus data. According to Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori (2015), this has three advantages: first, as a member of the case study institution, the author of this dissertation had the opportunity to access more information that may not be accessible to outside researchers. Second, the author of this thesis had a chance to collect data relatively easily over a long time. Third, the fact that the author of the thesis was a member of the case study institution may prove to be an advantage in exploratory studies where other methods may not be effective (Bleiklie et al., 2015, p. 878). Finally, it should be noted that possible precautions for problems connected with this approach will be dealt with in the next section. Introducing the case of DHBW We chose the case of the DHBW for two reasons. On the one hand, the case allowed us to explore our proposed research questions against the theoretical background comprehensively in terms of gathering an in-depth understanding of the governance of the third mission. On the other hand, the case promised to enhance our knowledge about a different governance arrangement regarding the aspects of the third mission and a multi-campus university. In addition, the illumination of the case promised to contribute to the literature on universities of applied sciences in higher education research. The study was restricted to the sector of universities of applied sciences and the subsector of CSPs in a single federal state context. The DHBW is structured as a multi-campus university consisting of a central organizational level and several decentralized levels (campuses). At the central level,

146

4

Methodological Considerations

we focused on the main university bodies (senate, supervisory board, executive committee, expert commissions of business, engineering, social work, health sciences, and quality assurance commission). At the decentralized level, two DHBW campuses (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) were considered as contrasting cases (between urban and rural areas) for the third mission. This included the campuses of Stuttgart (as an example of a metropolitan area) and Ravensburg (with the Lake Constance Upper Swabia region as an example of a rural area). In total, the DHBW is present in 12 regional campuses in Baden-Wuerttemberg. The organizational structure of a campus of the DHBW consists of a campus executive committee, a campus senate, and a campus university council. Technically, a campus consists of one or more campus schools belonging to the four academic departments correlating to the disciplines of business, engineering, social work, and health sciences. Although the campuses legally count as dependent subunits, they still possess their own identity due to the campus committees and academic schools. DHBW was founded in 2009 as the successor to the former Baden-Wuerttemberg University of Cooperative Education (Berufsakademie Baden-Wuerttemberg). Consequently, the DHBW was incorporated into the Baden-Wuerttemberg Higher Education Act (Landeshochschulgesetz) and granted the status of a university of applied sciences. This was fostered by an initiative of government and industry representatives and was supported by representatives of the former University of Cooperative Education. The Ministry of Science is responsible for the universities in Baden-Wuerttemberg, including the DHBW. The DHBW mainly offers bachelor courses of study that can only be studied as cooperative programs, almost exclusively in the practice-integrated model. About 34,000 students study at the DHBW, and more than 9,000 FPOs and NPOs cooperate with the university. The DHBW employs about 700 professors. About half of them are in charge of implementing CSPs in the function of a program coordinator. In addition, about 1,300 employees support the professors, most of whom work in the non-scientific field. About 6,500 lecturers (part-time lecturers) are active in the implementation of teaching. In terms of the number of enrolled students, the DHBW is the largest university in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and the largest (state) provider in the field of CSPs in Germany. The bachelor’s degree is awarded by earning 210 ECTS credits and is nationally and internationally recognized. The university has been system accredited since 2011. The DHBW Stuttgart (campus of DHBW) was founded in 1974 as the first location of the Baden-Wuerttemberg University of Cooperative Education. It was merged under the roof of the DHBW as a campus (in the sense of a site or a subsidiary) in 2009. The campus is located in the state capital of Baden-Wuerttemberg, which is

4.3 Research Design

147

the center of a large conurbation (Stuttgart region) with about 2.7 million inhabitants. It is worth mentioning that the region hosts more than 140,000 enterprises. The most important industry branches are automotive engineering, mechanical and electrical engineering, financial services, IT, mass media, and publishing houses. Among the 22 universities located in the Stuttgart region, the DHBW Stuttgart ranks with 8,300 registered students at the third place of higher education providers. Furthermore, the DHBW Stuttgart forms the largest campus of the DHBW and consists of the campus schools of business, engineering, social work, and health sciences. Concerning the portfolio of study courses offered, the campus, therefore, has been classified as a full-service provider. The DHBW Ravensburg (campus of DHBW) has existed since 1978 (expansion of the Baden-Wuerttemberg University of Cooperative Education) and has been a campus of the DHBW since 2009. The university campus is spread over two cities in the region. Among the six universities in the Lake Constance—Upper Swabia region (with more than 620,000 inhabitants), the DHBW Ravensburg ranks first with 3,900 registered students. The campus is one of the medium- to small-sized ones within the DHBW. The portfolio of CSPs consists of basic study programs (e.g., business administration, banking, or computer science) as well as specialized study programs (e.g., aerospace engineering or media design and tourism).

4.3.3

Data Collection

Our data collection approach consisted of semi-structured interviews, documents, and observation notes. In addition, the case study design followed a commonly described method of data collection (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 103). Combining multiple data sources promoted the objective to get a comprehensive and differentiated view on our given research topic. The literature on methodology designates the use of multiple sources of evidence as “triangulation concept” (Flick, 2011; Yin, 2014). Using triangulation of data sources, we balanced the advantages and disadvantages of available information. Furthermore, data triangulation served as a mechanism to avoid biased views on the research object as far as possible. Hence, this has promoted our strategy to improve construct validity. Preparatory phase Semi-structured interviews formed a core element of our data collection. Therefore, some aspects of the preparatory phase will be dealt with in more detail. For example, this included recording the interviews in digital audio format to ensure transcription quality and the correct handling of resulting data protection issues; this resulted in a

148

4

Methodological Considerations

specific strategy on data protection and data retention. With regard to data protection and data retention, a template for a declaration of consent for the collection and processing of personal data for research purposes was used. Here we relied on the work of audiotranskription.de4 and adopted and adapted the guidelines listed there for our project. The prepared declaration of consent summarized the important information on data collection, data storage, and data use for the respondents. In addition, the provided sample document on data protection referred to the work of the German Data Forum (Rat für Sozial- und WirtschaftsDaten). In doing so, we complied with the requirements of data protection to the best of our knowledge. During the interviews, this preparatory work turned out to be important, as the issue of data protection and its clarification gave the interviewees a secure feeling from the outset. It should also be emphasized that data protection and data processing are crucial topics in Germany, which explains the emphasis on this aspect. Furthermore, it was important to make the role of the dissertations’ author as a higher education researcher transparent to the interviewees in advance. The dissertations’ author occupied a dual role with regard to his employment at the same institution that was also the object of his research. We will come back to this later. To avoid possible conflicts, we decided on a proactive communication strategy. To this end, we developed and documented a guide with keywords to ensure a consistent narrative. Thus, when making an interview appointment, we were able to clarify that the dissertations’s author did not come as a staff member of the university but as a higher education researcher who intended to explore the DHBW as a research object. Our experience with the strategy was very positive. The majority of the persons interviewed showed great interest. At the same time, the interviewees were very curious and interested. In our opinion, it was important for most of the interviewees to support research about the DHBW. In only one case, persuasion was necessary. A breakthrough was only achieved here during the interview itself. This leads us to the aspect of how the interviews came about. Appointments were coordinated via e-mail and telephone. A communication guide ensured consistent communication. Due to the author of the dissertation working at the university, it was comparatively easy to contact persons, both in the environment of the cooperating companies as well as higher education policy. We will go into the selection of the interview sample in more detail later. A total of 36 requests for interview appointments were sent out. Of these, 31 interviews took place. Of these, 30 took place between August 2018 and November 2018. A latecomer contacted us half a year later, and the interview date was not set until August 2019 (due to schedule 4

Dresing, T., Pehl, T. (2018): MUSTER-Einwilligungserklärung für Interviews, audiotranskrition.de; abgerufen am 10.07.2018.

4.3 Research Design

149

difficulties). Despite the delay, the interview was carried out because it was held with a representative from a group that further strengthened our research database. We did not receive any answer (although we have enquired) from the other five potential interviewees we asked for an appointment. Selection of interviewees Overall, the data collection on the DHBW case covered the period from 2016 to 2019. In general, the choice of interviewees complied with the criterion of official membership or function in one of the several university steering bodies. It was, therefore, obvious to select interviewees from the officially accessible membership lists of the university committees. The theoretical consideration of our definition of governance of higher education guided this procedure. Thus, the selection of the interviewees was the result of a strategic research decision and used the following justification. First, the research interest related to the governance of the third mission and the theoretical framework formed a first delimitation of the field. Second, the case was approached with the help of theoretical considerations, and interviewees were selected from DHBW’s governance structure. We were careful to capture as many perspectives as possible from DHBW’s university governance. On that basis, the interviews were held with representatives from the meso level, such as representatives from the policy and governmental sphere, representatives of employers’ organizations, or central-level university leadership. At the micro level, interviews were held with a cross-section of stakeholders. Hence, our sample includes professors in the function of program coordinators, students from the official student representation body, and representatives from FPOs and NPOs as elected (or appointed) members of one of the several university committees. In addition, the sample contained members of university leadership from campus levels. In summary, our sample included perspectives from day-to-day operations (micro level) as well as an overarching perspective from university management, employers’ organizations, and the higher education policy sphere (meso level). From this, it can be concluded that our interview sample covered a 360-degree (see Figure 4.4) view on our research subject and thus met the requirement of a multi-perspective view as proposed by Pflüger, Pongratz, and Trinczek for organizational case studies (Pflüger et al., 2010, p. 30). Furthermore, our data collection contains higher education policy documents from the national level (Germany) and the regional level (Baden-Wuerttemberg).

150

4

Methodological Considerations

Professors

For-Profit and

Students

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 4.4 Selection of interviewees ensures 360-degree view

Occurring problems in higher education research and possible solutions Next, we will address two major problems that can arise when higher education researchers research their own university as a case and suggest solution strategies. According to Wilkesmann (2019), the methodological challenge of higher education research lies in the fact that the university as an object of research is located in the researchers’ own living environment (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 13). This gives rise to the “problem of self-objectification” and the “problem of selfoverestimation” (Wilkesmann, 2019, pp. 39–40). The self-objectification problem means that researchers can use their research to give more weight to their own position. The issue of self-overestimation means that university members as interview partners tend to see themselves as proven experts in their living and working environment and possibly overemphasize this. Hence, possible solution strategies are proposed for both: first, the problem of self-objectification may be solved by open

4.3 Research Design

151

interaction between academics. In other words, the problem can be controlled by a systematic critical reflection strategy. Secondly, the problem of self-overestimation may be dealt with through a precise understanding of the living world (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 122). An in-depth study of the context and the respondent’s experience will help to better understand the answers and possibly better classify them. However, in the context of our case study, it was possible to deal with both problems. We can exclude the first problem (self-objectification) since the case study deals with a possible extension of scientific knowledge in the field of universities of applied sciences in the context of higher education research; thus, the researcher’s own interests can be excluded. The second problem (self-overestimation) did not arise because, as mentioned at the beginning, my role as a researcher was communicated transparently and the research topic met with great interest in general. Preparation of the semi-structured interviews The following section deals with questions of the applied interview guide and how it came about. We need to disclose the underlying ideas to give the reader a better understanding of the data collection strategy. At this point, it should also be mentioned that the interviews were held in German. We conducted 31 semi-structured face-to-face interviews at locations familiar to the persons interviewed (their offices or meeting rooms). We chose this form to gather knowledge, experiences, or stakeholders’ views in an oral conversation. In doing so, we pursued deeper and broader insights into our research topic. The conducted interviews lasted from 25 to 75 minutes. Our interview guide was developed based on the proposed life cycle model for CSPs, presented in detail in our section on operationalization. We were using this model as a heuristic for the development of the interview guidelines. The life cycle model includes the following four steps: step one, development and establishment; step two, daily operation; step three, (re-)accreditation; and step four, termination of CSPs. For each step, a series of questions was formed to generate answers that could serve as a data basis for answering our research questions. In addition, the approach promised that the expected responses would deal with structures, processes, and networks of stakeholder relationships and their roles, as well as their mutual dependencies concerning CSPs. With the help of this basic structure, we prepared interview guidelines for our targeted stakeholder groups: (1) representatives from the governmental and higher education policy sphere, (2) professors in the function as program coordinator, (3) representatives from FPOs and NPOs, (4) students from the student representation body, and (5) university leadership members. Consequently, interview guidelines— adapted to the survey sample—were drawn up. In addition, introductory questions supplemented the semi-structured interview guide (e.g., questions about the person,

152

4

Methodological Considerations

role, and career) and the query of demographic data (e.g., age, gender). The following table (see Table 4.1) gives an overview of the structure and the main topics addressed in the interview guide (shortened version).

Tab. 4.1 Structure and main topics covered by the interview guide Block of questions

Objective

Sample questions

Measures

Getting acquainted with each other

Warming up; triggering narratives

• What is your biographical connection to CSPs? • What is your role? • How would you describe the role of other actors?

Structures, processes, relationships, stakeholders as actors, other topics

Main questions

Triggering narratives with the help of a model

Questions grouped around a life cycle model of CSPs, e.g.: • How do you recognize the demand for a new degree course? • What are the first steps, and who is involved? • How do you shape curricula in daily operations? • Who is involved? • When are you as a person especially needed in operational management matters? • How are activities of quality management shaped and carried out? • Who is involved? • How do curricula of CSPs experience an update? • What are reasons to terminate a course of study? • Who decides termination?

Structures, processes, relationships, stakeholders as actors, other topics

Outlook questions

Closing narratives

• What are future challenges concerning cooperative higher education? • Where do you see future developments (10-year prospect)?

Structures, processes, relationships, stakeholders as actors, other topics

Age, gender, number of years in the current position, academic discipline/industry, or line of business

Just for internal use

Demographic data

Concluding remarks on data collection Ultimately, interviews were held in the offices or meeting rooms at the interviewees’ sites. Moreover, the interviews were audiotaped and lasted from about 25 minutes to approximately 75 minutes, depending on the time available to the respondent

4.3 Research Design

153

and the degree of data saturation. Absolute anonymity was promised to respondents. Interview protocols formed the basis for the interviews, and field notes were taken during the interviews. Furthermore, the distribution of interviewees revealed the following composition: 17 interviewees represented the stakeholder group of professors, six interviewees represented the stakeholder group of representatives from FPOs and NPOs, four interviewees represented the stakeholder group of students, and four interviewees represented the stakeholder group of the governmental and higher education policy sphere (additional voice). In total, 31 interviews delivered data on CSPs based on our depicted (semi-structured) interview guide. In the following, we have listed a tabular overview for documentation purposes, separated by the interviewed stakeholder group. Each table provides information on the person interviewed, which stakeholder group the person interviewed belonged to, at which organizational level the person was located, to which seniority the person interviewed was assigned, the length of the interview, the gender of the person interviewed, and the date of the interview. The following table (see Table 4.2) shows the group of professors interviewed: Tab. 4.2 Overview of the stakeholder group of professors interviewed Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

6

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior university leadership— chair expert commission

00:54:40

m

14.08.18

11

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Overall organization

Senior program coordinator— emeritus professor

00:50:42

m

20.08.18

1

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator

00:57:29

m

07.08.18

10

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior university leadership— middle management

00:52:56

m

17.08.18

(continued)

154

4

Methodological Considerations

Tab. 4.2 (continued) Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

19

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator

01:05:05

m

05.09.18

26

Professor business studies

Professor (university)

Overall organization

Senior program coordinator

00:48:55

f

02.10.18

3

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator

00:58:10

m

13.08.18

5

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Overall organization

Senior program coordinator— top management

00:58:10

m

14.08.18

7

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Overall organization

Senior university leadership— top management

00:57:12

m

15.08.18

8

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Campus

Junior university leadership— middle management

00:43:56

f

16.08.18

21

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Campus

Senior university leadership— spokesman of the senate

00:46:32

m

25.09.18

25

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Overall organization

Senior program coordinator— chairman professors’ union

00:41:45

m

02.10.18

28

Professor Professor engineering (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator— chair expert commission

00:58:32

m

06.11.18

(continued)

4.3 Research Design

155

Tab. 4.2 (continued) Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

2

Professor health sciences

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator— management expert commission

00:56:53

f

08.08.18

4

Professor social work

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior university leadership— top management

01:16:13

f

13.08.18

16

Professor social work

Professor (university)

Campus

Senior program coordinator— chair expert commission

00:59:29

m

29.08.18

17

Professor social work

Professor (university)

Campus

Junior university leadership— middle management

00:49:18

m

31.08.18

The following table (see Table 4.3) gives more detailed information about the persons interviewed in the field of FPOs and NPOs: Tab. 4.3 Overview of the interviewed group of representatives of FPOs and NPOs Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

9

Representa- FPO and tive NPO employers’ (industry) association

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

Overall organization

Senior CEO—top management

00:54:19

m

16.08.18

(continued)

156

4

Methodological Considerations

Tab. 4.3 (continued) Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

12

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Representa- FPO and tive FPOs NPO and NPOs (industry)

Overall organization

15

Representa- FPO and tive FPOs NPO and NPOs (industry)

20

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

Senior 01:02:33 CEO—top management (big enterprise)

m

21.08.18

Overall organization

Senior 00:45:41 CEO—top management (big enterprise)

m

29.08.18

Representa- FPO and tive FPOs NPO and NPOs (industry)

Campus

Senior CEO—top management (small and medium-sized enterprises)

00:31:50

m

07.09.18

22

Representa- FPO and tive FPOs NPO and NPOs (industry)

Campus

Senior 00:48:05 CEO—top management (big enterprise)

m

26.09.18

29

Representa- FPO and tive FPOs NPO and NPOs (industry)

Overall organization

Senior CEO

m

26.11.18

00:45:22

The following table (see Table 4.4) provides information on the students surveyed from the ranks of the student body: Tab. 4.4 Overview of the interviewed group of students Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

13

Student’s union representative

Student

Campus

Junior employee

00:28:58

f

Student’s union representative

Student

Junior employee

00:33:44

14

Campus

Date

22.08.18 m 23.08.18 (continued)

4.3 Research Design

157

Tab. 4.4 (continued) Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

18

Student’s union representative

Student

Overall organization

Junior employee

00:30:30

m

Student’s union representative

Student

Overall organization

Junior employee

00:26:56

27

Date

03.09.18 m 25.10.18

The following table (see Table 4.5) documents information on the interviewed group of representatives from the sphere of government and higher education policy: Tab. 4.5 Overview of the interviewed group of representatives from of the governmental and higher education policy sphere Interview #

Academic discipline/ occupational field

Type of stakeholder

Organization/ organizational unit

Seniority

Duration (hh:mm:ss)

Gender

Date

23

Expert for higher education and CSPs

Governmental and higher education policy sphere (government)

Overall organization

Senior CEO— higher education expert

00:38:00

m

26.09.18

24

Expert for higher education and CSPs

Governmental and higher education policy sphere (government)

Overall organization

Senior CEO— higher education expert

00:39:49

m

27.09.18

30

State supervision

Governmental and higher education policy sphere (government)

Overall organization

Head of division

00:32:15

f

08.11.18

31

State supervision

Governmental and higher education policy sphere (government)

Overall organization

Head of administration

00:58:18

m

01.08.19

158

4

Methodological Considerations

Concerning the gender distribution of interviewees, 25 interviews were held with male contact persons and 6 with female persons. Hence, female interviewees represented a minority with a 19 percent share, a proportion that was reflected in the official annual equality reports of DHBW (e.g., DHBW, 2018). Therefore, our sample of interviewees represented a representative cross-section. In addition, the disciplinary allocation of the professors’ interviews consisted of the following: 7 interviewees belonged to the Department of Engineering, six interviewees belonged to the Department of Business Administration, three interviewees belonged to the Department of Social Work, and one interviewee belonged to the recently established Department of Health Sciences. Therefore, our sample of interviewees within the professors’ group represented a representative cross-section as well. Concerning the stakeholder group of representatives from FPOs and NPOs, the enterprises were categorized according to size (big enterprise, small- and medium-sized enterprise, employer’s association). Six interviews were held in total, with four interviewees belonging to the category of big enterprises, one interviewee representing the category of small- and medium-sized enterprises, and one interviewee representing the largest employers’ association of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. At this stage, one can record a paradox: regarding student enrollments, small- and medium-sized enterprises have by far the largest share. Regarding the representation of interests of FPOs and NPOs, the big enterprises have a strong voice, which is also reflected in the interviewee sample. In the end, the following conclusion presented itself: within the body of interviewees, the professors’ voices dominated, along with the male voice in terms of gender aspects. Furthermore, the academic disciplines of engineering and business administration prevailed, which goes along with the general allocation of CSPs in current statistical data (e.g., BIBB, 2019). In addition, the voices of big enterprise representatives (“big shots” such as the metal or electrical industry) were the most prominent. Our conclusion from the discussion outlined above is that the interview sample as a whole represented a representative cross-section of the case study setup. Following the logic of triangulation (as we have discussed at the outset), different data sources were used to complete our data collection (and inhibit biases). Therefore, we used document data encompassing university documents (e.g., official reports, statistics, concept papers), legal documents (e.g., statutes, Higher Education Act), policy documents (e.g., higher education strategy of BadenWuerttemberg, ministry reports), and websites (e.g., DHBW website, websites of DHBW-campuses, websites of cities with a campus of DHBW, websites of the

4.3 Research Design

159

chambers of industry and commerce, websites of employers’ associations, website of the Ministry of Science, website of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg). These documents were consulted when things were unclear or when an issue required further in-depth study.

4.3.4

Data Analysis

The interview recordings were fully transcribed verbatim and coded for the research-relevant conceptualizations. For the data coding and the data analysis, MAXQDA software was used, which is a software tool to analyze qualitative data. We followed a qualitative content analysis approach as proposed by Mayring (Mayring, 2014; Mayring, 2015) and applied a system of categories derived from theory and the material itself (deductive-inductive strategy). The basis for this was the observation matrix (the associated data can be viewed in Appendix 12 in the electronic supplementary material). In general, our categories reflect theoretical concepts to gather findings for answering our research question (and the guiding subquestions). This course of action is also referred to in the methodological literature in higher education research as a “targeted form of qualitative content analysis” (Gläser & Laudel, 2010). Basically, a deductive system of categories derived from the theoretical concepts followed a strict procedure. This posed a fundamental challenge to allow sufficient openness to shape categories from the material. However, when we reviewed the material, it turned out that the categories from the material either deepened the theoretical concepts by certain aspects or complemented them meaningfully. Our system of categories consisted of major categories, each encompassing a set of codes and subcodes, which reflected and recorded the theoretical concepts as well as emerging topics from the data (foremost interview data). On the basis of the content analysis, an evaluation was carried out according to the number of assigned codes, resulting in a ranking built on the quantitative evaluation (number of codes assigned). This ranking reflected the frequency of the topics covered in the codes and subcodes. On this basis, similar topics were grouped into categories. The most important categories—per stakeholder group and overall—were then ranked according to the number of code frequencies. This resulted in the top categories for each stakeholder group and applied equally to the overall view across all stakeholder groups. The two to three topics most frequently mentioned were identified within the four most important categories according to the number of codes issued. The whole procedure aimed to rebuild social facts. It unraveled facts and figures about particular conditions or processes of our studied organization, thus enabling us to answer our research questions.

160

4

Methodological Considerations

Additionally, the process-tracing method was applied to the material (Beach & Pedersen, 2018; Collier, 2011). This method was applied to gain an even deeper understanding of the causal dynamics that resulted in a particular issue in our research subject. Process tracing methods were used in case studies, e.g., to deepen investigations within a case study. The aim was to understand causal mechanisms in a specific context. We have implemented a pragmatic application by relying on causal relationships based on process descriptions derived from the material. The gathered raw data were included in our case-study database. A manufactured research protocol recorded general rules and procedures in our research, documented from where and whom information was sought. It also entailed a core set of questions used in interviews. In addition, the research protocol enhanced the reliability and validity of our case research. Furthermore, this constituted a crucial element of quality management. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the research protocol was piloted and discussed with the doctoral supervisor and other researchers to gather valuable feedback. The feedback received was incorporated. Finally, our conducted data analysis aimed to elaborate and contribute to get answers to our research question(s) and derive findings from raw case data. The findings represented the researcher’s interpretation of the data.

4.3.5

Limitations

The following section provides an overview of the sample size, construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability of our single-case study conducted. Sample size We researched a single case over a limited period (2016—2019) that was declared a prime example in the relevant higher education research literature. Therefore, generalization was not the objective of our case research. Our approach was to gain an in-depth understanding of a current phenomenon of higher education practice (CSPs and the underlying governance problem, growth of the sector of CSPs), and we contributed to closing a gap in higher education governance literature concerning the third mission for universities of applied sciences (teaching prospect). In addition, we provided evidence and insights to the discussion on multi-campus university approaches. It is also highly likely that against the backdrop of our empirical findings, our case may contribute to the practice of higher education management.

4.3 Research Design

161

Construct validity The construct validity has been understood as to how correct operational measures were established for the concepts being studied. In other words, construct validity dealt with the appropriateness of established operational measures for the concepts under investigation (Yin, 2014, p. 118). First, the use of multiple sources of evidence that, in turn, incorporated two or more sources was proposed to ensure the rationale of triangulation. Second, a case study database served as the formal assembly for this purpose. Our thesis used several sources of evidence, namely interviews and documents. Moreover, following the recommendations, we created, maintained, and archived a database for the conducted case study of our thesis. Lastly, initial case findings were partly presented in conference presentations and articles displaying findings and conclusions to the review of academic peers. Internal validity In general, internal validity was understood as the extent to which a causal relationship could be established. It has to be shown that certain conditions lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships. As proposed by Yin (2014), a theoretical framework was established, supporting an open and moving forward manner of our exploration (Yin, 2014, p. 136). Furthermore, the twofold way (open and tentative) was considered by the chosen interview approach. On the one hand, the aim was to gain a deep understanding of the causalities. On the other hand, it was also essential to be able to grasp emerging topics. The interview guide considered both aspects. In line with Yin (2014), pattern matching was conducted in our case study (Yin, 2014, p. 143) that built on an elaborated coding strategy (deductive-inductive strategy)tested and reviewed in advance. In addition, we supplemented our qualitative content analysis with the process-tracing method, which once again secured pattern recognition from an additional methodological perspective. External validity Yin (2014) has suggested that a case study can provide “analytical generalization.” He based this on the fact that theories have already been included in the design of a case study, which helped generalize the case study results in terms of “lessons learned” (Yin, 2014, p. 40). In other words, it means that a collection of specific results can be generalized in terms of theory. Concerning our research, we can argue that based on our empirical data, generalizations can also be made for the third mission theories of higher education institutions, such as the Triple Helix theory. The theoretical contexts of our case study were very clearly developed and

162

4

Methodological Considerations

presented in a specifically tailored theoretical model. In addition, our single-case study intended to gain an in-depth understanding and will not aim for a universal generalization. Reliability Reliability entailed demonstrating that the operations of the study, such as data collection procedures, can be repeated with the same results. Hence, the use of a case study protocol and a case study database was recommended. In the case study of our thesis, we have established a case study protocol and a case study database. For creating the case study protocol (Yin, 2014, p. 84), we followed the structure proposed by Yin (2014). Reflections on the author’s role as a higher education researcher At the end of this section, we discuss and reflect on the author’s role as a higher education researcher to create the necessary transparency. We have already indicated the specific role of the dissertation’s author at an earlier point in this chapter. Therefore, in the spirit of observing the principle of traceability in empirical research, Wilkesmann (2019) provided the following recommendation: In the qualitative area, the field access, the type of data collection and evaluation, as well as all-important background information for understanding the social situation during data collection, must always be documented and described. Of course, this also applies to higher education research. (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 57, translated by author)

Following the recommendations of Wilkesmann (2019), we would like to focus on the two aspects of field access and background information for understanding the social situation during data collection. We argue that the author’s role as a higher education researcher who researched the higher education institution where he was employed was also covered by the two mentioned aspects. Of course, the author of this thesis was an insider who did research in a familiar context. Moreover, the author of the dissertation was employed at the DHBW for more than ten years in the non-scientific area. This provided comparatively easy access to the topic (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007, p. 67). The author of the thesis worked in a relatively young field at the interface between administration and academic teaching at the departmental management level. Hence, he had a prior understanding (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007, p. 68) of the context wherein the case study of his thesis was conducted, for example, in the field of the internal governance mechanisms and its peculiarities. In the higher education research literature, his professional role is also known as “higher education professional” (Kehm et al., 2010) or “third space professional”

4.3 Research Design

163

(Whitchurch, 2008). So, the author of this dissertation worked as a higher education professional or third space professional who conducted higher education research about his institution. In the course of the research, we followed the recommendation and reflected on the thesis author’s role as a researcher (Burzan, 2016, p. 17). First of all, we dealt with his professional background because it shaped his professional self-image and affected his professional actions. As an industrial engineer, the author of the thesis was educated to understand two different sectors (business and engineering) and qualified to mediate at the interface between the two fields of interest. His qualification profile was also reflected in his professional position at the case study university, where the ability to balance between university administration and the academic side of the university was required. This alone reveals a “role duality” (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007, p. 69), for which the author of the thesis has already been trained to deal with professionally in his role as a third space professional. In other words, another role, that of researcher, was added to the existing role duality. Therefore, his qualification profile enabled him to avoid possible biases. Furthermore, “reflexivity” (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007, p. 72) was ensured through firmly defined points in the research process where intermediate steps and interim results could be discussed critically and subjected to reflection. This process was closely monitored by the doctoral supervisor and other researchers (including research colloquia and the presentation of the work at relevant conferences). The related methodological problems of “self-objectification” and “self-overestimation” have already been discussed in the previous section (Wilkesmann, 2019, p. 50).

5

Results

This chapter presents and discusses the results derived from the case study on the governance of the third mission at a multi-campus university, drawing on the case of cooperative study programs (CSPs) as an example of a teaching-related third mission. First, we present and discuss how the case study university is structured and introduce in separate subsections the multi-campus university and its main structures, the CSPs and their features, and the committee system with its specific organization. Second, we introduce the main stakeholders of CSPs and dedicate a subsection to each of them. Each subsection depicts the profile of stakeholders concerning their most salient roles in CSPs and the multi-campus university. Third, a subsection on processes presents how CSPs are carried out at the micro level and how those connect to meso level actions. Fourth, we disclose the stakeholders’ perceived practices of third mission governance in the section on “roles and influence” of professors, students, FPO and NPO representatives, and policy representatives on CSPs, and thus third mission governance.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_5).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_5

165

166

5

Results

5.1

Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

5.1.1

Structures and Characteristics of the Case Study University

Regarding our research object, one can distinguish two main structures: the first type of structure under investigation relates to the administration of the multi-campus university (MCU). This includes different campuses and schools, a central control unit (presidium) connected to it, an administrative structure for CSP degree courses and their associated absorption capacity, as well as an academic structure consisting of cross-campus departments and subordinate campus schools. Second, the committee system of the university and its features are depicted to ensure the integration of stakeholders in governance issues of CSPs. Both structures are central to the design and implementation of CSPs.

5.1.1.1 Multi-campus University and its Characteristics Organizational structure of the multi-campus university In our case study, the term multi-campus university (MCU) refers to a university as an organizational entity that consists of faculties and departments in geographically dispersed locations. These geographically dispersed locations are called “campuses” administered by central university management and an administrative unit called the “presidium” of the university. At the campus level, the university’s organizational structure is composed of campus schools and their associated study programs. Figure 5.1 illustrates the organizational structure of our case study university, including the characteristics described above. Relationships between the levels of the multi-campus university and beyond An image from the discipline of business administration illustrates the relations between the organizational units of the DHBW at different levels: the so-called “report chain” that depicts the reporting relationships between various parties in the organizational structure. Our data shows that in terms of hierarchy, the report chain at the case study MCU follows a top-down approach. Each of the campuses has a duty to report to the presidium on the main results of their operations. At the campus level, there is also a reporting obligation between the study program level and the campus school level, as well as between the campus schools and the campus management (see Figure 5.2).

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

167

As shown in Figure 5.2, the governance of the third mission also includes the reporting links between the university and the science ministry (of BadenWuerttemberg). Specifically, the presidium has a duty to report to the ministry on the main results of the operations and strategic plans (referring to both teaching and administrative matters) of the MCU. Further, the ministry has to report to the state parliament and the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg (see Figure 5.2). The data show that the structural design of the case study MCU and the CSPs can be divided into three categories: campus-based, administrative and academic structures.

Presidium

Campuses Campus schools Study programs

Mul-campus university

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 5.1 Organizational structure of DHBW

168

5

Results

Characteristics of the campus-based structure of the MCU First, a “campus-based structure” distinguishes programs by campuses that are based in a specific city (location) and its corresponding regions within the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany) (see Figure 5.3). Our case-study university has twelve campuses located in twelve different cities within the federal state. Figure 5.3 shows the relation between the DHBW-campuses (the markers) and the economic regions of Baden-Wuerttemberg. An interviewee characterized the structural design of the MCU DHBW as a federal system with a common control center for the joint development of the university and relative autonomy of the campuses; another interviewee described the university as a regionally distributed university. The campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) is in charge of the operation/implementation of CSPs. Each campus consists of campus schools from different academic disciplines. The latter are organized in cross-campus departments, with campus schools shaping their representation on site. Characteristics of the academic structure The so-called “academic structure” addresses the subject-related or professional side of the university. The academic structure is closely connected to academic disciplines organized in cross-campus departments and affiliated with campus schools.

Ministry level

Presidium level

Campus level

Campus school level

Study program level

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 5.2 Reporting relations of DHBW from the bottom-level to the top-level

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

169

Rhine-Neckar

Heilbronn-Franconia

Middle Upper Rhine

East Wuerttemberg

North Black Forest Stuttgart Region

Neckar-Alb Southern Upper Rhine

Danube-Iller

Black ForestBaar-Heuberg

High RhineLake Constance

Lake ConstanceUpper Swabia

Note. Author’s representation referring to DHBW 2019. Fig. 5.3 Depiction of DHBW’s campuses and their connection to Baden-Wuerttemberg’s economic regions

170

5

Results

These have also been described as a “regional representation” of an academic discipline. The DHBW consists of four discipline-specific, cross-campus departments featuring the academic disciplines of (1) Business, (2) Engineering, (3) Social Work, and (4) Health Sciences. The sequence reflects their current proportions and structural importance in terms of enrolled students and the total number of cohorts for the university (based on statistical figures of the year 2018). According to interview data, these cross-campus departments form the shared structure for the joint academic development of the university. Figure 5.4 illustrates the academic structure of the case study MCU (see Figure 5.4).

Mul-campus university DHBW

Department of Business

Department of Engineering

Department of Social Work

Department of Health Sciences

Campus schools

Campus schools

Campus schools

Campus schools

Study programs

Study programs

Study programs

Study programs

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 5.4 Academic structure of DHBW and its constituting structural elements

As Figure 5.4 shows, each cross-campus department is organized according to a certain number of campus schools. This also means that CSP degree courses belonging to a specific academic department are operated by a certain campus school. Thus, a campus school refers to the operation or delivery of CSPs in different disciplines and brings the key stakeholders (in fact: professors, FPO and NPO representatives, students) of CSPs together. Further, a campus school includes installing a certain number of cohorts (see the subsection on administrative organization of CSPs). It also constitutes the academic community of professors and the FPOs and NPOs linked via the CSPs. Our analysis revealed (based on the statistical figures of the year 2018) nine campus schools for business, seven campus schools for engineering, and three campus schools for social work. During our investigation, health sciences were in a

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

171

foundation process and consisted of one cross-campus department. In addition, five existing campus schools operated study programs in the shape of subject-related “study centers.” Characteristics of the administrative structure The so-called “administrative structure” refers to the program level of CSPs. This level incorporates the administrative organization of CSP courses of study (see Figure 5.5), organized in groups with 30 study places each. Thus, students of CSPs learn in small groups, so-called courses, comprising 30 students each (see Figure 5.5). Cohort of a cooperave study program

Incoming students

30 study places

30 study places

30 study places

First year of studies

Senond year of studies

Third year of studies

Outgoing students

Course of studies

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 5.5 Administrative structure of CSPs and the associated study place capacities

This is related to the first year of study (regarding a course of study) and shapes a cohort with 30 students in each year of a study program. A cohort for the duration of three years (bachelor study program) includes 90 students (see Figure 5.5). For an understanding of the concept of cohort, it is necessary to explain that it constitutes an administrative planning unit in teaching at the case study university. The upper limit of enrolled students in a CSP is referred to as the absorption capacity of a particular program. The number of first-year students is an important indicator for university management to measure enrollment success. The planning of the program’s capacity is the responsibility of a professor who is the program coordinator

172

5

Results

(Studiengangsleitung). The administration of CSPs includes tasks such as preparation of the curriculum and the resulting lessons to teach, the control of the capacity of the study places for the assigned study program, and the implementation of the assigned study program. Several cohorts with several study programs form a campus school, and several campus schools constitute a campus. Thus, on a campus, a large number of cohorts (i.e., the total capacity of a campus) is managed and supervised by management and the professors as program coordinators. The sum of cohorts from each campus forms the university’s total study program absorption capacity and the total number of study places (which refers to the number of study places from academic year one to three).

5.1.1.2 Study Programs and their Characteristics At this point, we shed light on the range of courses and the structures of study programs in more detail to understand the structural nature and its function concerning third mission governance. Our data have shown that the implementation of the range of courses in the shape of study programs refers to the micro level of the university. Further, one may conclude that the range of courses shapes the university’s academic profile in general and the regional distributed campuses in particular. The organization of the DHBW’s CSPs in modules and their grouping into “courses of study” and “fields of study” has been the first important insight from our data analysis. A course of study forms the larger structural unit, which constitutes an entire study program. In a course of study, a group of modules constitutes a field of study to shape a profile in the direction of a particular industry or sector. The left side of Figure 5.6 shows this relationship graphically. Second, within a course of study, a group of specific modules refers to disciplinary core modules (e.g., engineering or social work) and core subjects (e.g., in the case of business administration: marketing, controlling, or accounting) (see Figure 5.6, right side). Further, in a course of study, a group of specific modules refers to profile modules (see Figure 5.6, right side) which shape a field of study (see Figure 5.6, left side). Hence, the “field of study mechanism” is used to connect to a particular profession or industry sector (e.g., the banking sector or digital business management). It is crucial to grasp the content-related structural distinction at the program level of CSPs to understand third mission governance. It can be concluded that the university uses this mechanism to design the CSPs according to the needs of FPOs and NPOs. We also found that the university uses the distinction to build its profile. In addition, one can say the field of study distinction is used as a professional specification to connect study programs to

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

173

Course of study Core modules

Field of study

Profile modules

Note. Authors’ representation.

Fig. 5.6 Depiction of study programs and their structural characteristics incorporating the distinction “course of study” and “field of study” (left side) and “core modules” and “profile modules” (right side)

specific industries, functional areas, or fields of activity (e.g., Business Administration—Real Estate Management or Social Work in Healthcare). Thus, core modules and profile modules are distinguished within a course of study, with the latter shaping a study program to link them to the industry on the content level. For example, the social work course offers the specialization (field of study) in the professional area of youth work. Or the mechanical engineering course offers the specialization in the area of automotive engineering. A course and its specializations are shaped by core modules and profile modules within the curriculum that reflect the requirements of a specific occupation and a particular discipline.

5.1.1.3 Study Portfolio of the Case Study University We considered the number of degree courses offered by the entire university at the bachelor level. We limited ourselves to this field as it represents the main activity of the case study MCU. Study programs offered at the bachelor’s level are clustered according to the four (cross-campus) departments Business Administration, Engineering, Social Work, and Health Sciences. In the following, we present the findings of our analysis of the DHBW’s current study program portfolio (status 2018/2019). Analysis by number of courses Based on the number of courses of study and fields of study (specializations), the order is as follows:

174

5

Results

• The Department of Engineering and its subordinate campus schools offer eleven courses of study with 45 fields of study aligned with it. Thus, the Department of Engineering has the largest and most extensive range of courses of study. Mechanical engineering, business administration and engineering, electrical engineering, and mechatronics form the most significant offers (distribution approximately equal). Aerospace engineering and paper technology form the smallest offer. • The Department of Business and its campus schools offer six courses of study with 36 fields of study aligned with it. Accordingly, the Department of Business features the second largest and most extensive range of courses of study. Within the Department of Business, business administration forms the largest offer, and entrepreneurship the smallest. • The Department of Social Work and its underlying campus schools offer two courses of study with 16 fields of study aligned with it. Thus, the Department of Social Work has the third largest and most extensive range of courses of study. The course of study social work forms the most extensive offer, and social economy the smallest. • The recently established Department of Health Sciences represents a particular case to some extent. This is because the department is currently under construction and the (cross-campus) department has several study models (practice-integrated model, combination-model, part-time model) in use. The other departments exclusively use the practice-integrated study model. The Department of Health Sciences has seven courses of study and forms the smallest area of DHBW. According to the number of courses of study and the underlying fields of study, one may conclude that the Department of Engineering and the Department of Business constitute the most important academic units of DHBW. Analysis according to study place capacities per discipline A different picture emerges when studying study place capacities, which refer to the number of first semester places (absorption capacity): • Concerning the total number of first-year study places, the Department of Business constitutes the largest area of the university with more than 7.230 study places. Within the Department of Business, business administration has by far the largest first-year student capacity (5.220 study places). • The Department of Engineering follows closely with more than 4.320 study places for first-year students. Within the Department of Engineering, mechanical engineering offers the largest first-year student capacity (1.230 study places).

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

175

• The Department of Social Work and the Department of Health Sciences form minor areas. The Department of Social Work offers about 840 first-year study places, and within the Department of Social Work, the social work course of study has the largest first-year student capacity (780 study places). • The Department of Health Sciences has about 390 first-year study places, of which applied health sciences holds the largest first-year student capacity (180 study places). Concerning absorption capacities (number of study places for first semester students), the Department of Business is the primary provider of (absorption) capacity for the DHBW and thus plays an important role. The Department of Engineering follows in second place by some distance. Therefore, one may conclude (again) that the Department of Business and the Department of Engineering constitute the most important capacity units of the DHBW. Interim conclusions We have found that the MCU consists of three types of structures that shape its individual texture: first, the campus-based structure ensures proximity to the FPOs and NPOs in the economic regions of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Second, the administrative structure relates to the courses of study and their capacity management (absorption capacities), which delivers appropriate courses with a sufficient number of study places to FPOs and NPOs. Third, the academic structure of CSPs enables the delivery of courses of study according to the demand (content level) of FPOs and NPOs. This is achieved by the content-driven structural division of CSPs into courses of study and fields of study. Thus, on a structural- and content-related level, a link between academic disciplines and the specialist needs of the FPOs and NPOs is formed. Further, we found that this is reflected in the large number and variety of courses on offer. In particular, the range of courses offered in the disciplines of business and engineering is very broad on the content level, which is reflected in a high number of courses of study and the corresponding fields of study. Measured by the number of capacities and the number of courses offered, the business and engineering departments are the most salient for the university. This might also echo the economic structure of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Finally, our empirical investigation gave us the impression that there is a great deal of room for maneuver in the establishment of CSPs. This seems to be particularly true for business administration and engineering, where, in contrast to health care, the professions are less regulated, which is also reflected in the diversity of CSPs in business administration and engineering.

176

5

Results

5.1.1.4 Committee System and its Characteristics Our data analysis has revealed a complex and widespread system of committees within our case study MCU. Therefore, committees have been categorized by their position on organizational levels and the tasks assigned to them. Further, a composition of the committees is presented and discussed at the end of this subsection. Committees categorized according to their location at the organizational levels In a first step, university committees have been categorized by their location within the structural organization of the MCU. From this perspective, we describe, locate and characterize salient committees based on our data. First, we identified “overall organization committees,” which include the senate, the supervisory board, and the executive board. Those committees are concerned with matters of joint development and central-level control of the university. Second, so-called “cross-campus committees” form a bridge between centralized and decentralized matters and, above all, bundle academic questions in the sense of a common strategy. We counted the so-called expert commissions and the underlying subcommissions among this type of university committee. The underlying subcommissions take up the courses of study and fields of study (within their academic departments) and bundle their concerns in the direction of the expert commissions and the senate and vice versa, in the direction of the operation of CSPs. Those expert commissions and their underlying subcommissions reflect the cross-campus department design of the university in four academic disciplines (business, engineering, social work, and health sciences). Consequently, up to four expert commissions operate (as of 2018/2019). The expert commissions make proposals in the sense of decision-making preparation on issues of the degree course portfolio of the university. This includes, for example, study program development and developments of the accompanying examination system. All expert commissions have a reporting obligation in the direction of the senate and the supervisory board. A so-called “quality assurance commission” accompanies the work of the expert commissions. Third, so-called “campus committees” shape and accompany the implementation of CSPs at the campuses of the DHBW. Ordered by rank from top to bottom, this includes nine campus senates, nine campus-university councils, nine campus executive committees, 19 campus school councils of professors, and more than thirty quality circles on the level of courses of study and fields of study. Consequently, the campus levels essentially reflect the central committee structure.

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

177

Committees categorized according to their assigned tasks (division of labor) In a second step, university committees have been categorized by their task and function within the decision-making process of and negotiation on CSPs. Accordingly, we could categorize them as follows: First, committees with formal decision-making authority: we recall that the case study university has been identified as a state institution. Consequently, rights and duties have been regulated by law, including the tasks and responsibilities of university committees. These are defined in the Higher Education Act. Therefore, we base our argumentation on the decision-making powers described therein. Decisionmaking authority is understood as the ability to influence the course of an event and can be operationalized through the instruments of vote, resolution, and approval. Accordingly, three university committees ultimately belong to this category: the senate, the supervisory board, and the executive committee. These belong to the category of overall organization committees, as presented in the previous subsection. Second, committees with the right to make proposals for decision-making: we understand the right to make proposals as the process of preparation of decisionmaking documents, with those documents appearing as an output or result at the end of this process. Furthermore, we understand the abovementioned preparation process as a kind of negotiation on certain issues, whose results and intermediate steps are recorded in written form. We grasped this aspect from a very formal prospect. For example, a subject of the negotiation is the preparation of a formal resolution on establishing a new course of study of a CSP or preparing for a decision on examination forms of bachelor study programs. Consequently, we relate the process primarily to matters concerning CSPs. Hence, this may include expert commissions and associated subcommissions, as well as quality assurance commissions. These committees have also been categorized as cross-campus committees. Third, committees with the function of supervision and support: supervision and support have been related to the implementation of CSPs. Thus, these also refer to the abovementioned campus committees and include campus senates, campus university councils, campus executive committees, campus school councils of professors, and quality circles on the level of study programs (linked to courses of study and fields of study). In the day-to-day business of CSPs, the data suggested that it was important to comply with academic guidelines and rules (decisions that were jointly made) and monitor proper implementation. However, data have shown that it was also important to make use of free space or leeway and within a given framework of action. Leeway concerns, for example, adjusting a course of study and the underlying field of study to the needs of a particular industry sector at a certain campus site. In other words, within a given framework of action, it is possible to adjust the courses of study to the needs of the FPOs and NPOs (customers). And

178

5

Results

this task falls within the remit of the bodies mentioned here. The following salient aspects emerged in our data analysis and thus are also worth mentioning: the campus university council decides (formal authority) on the admission of FPOs and NPOs as “training partners.” Furthermore, we found that the FPOs and NPOs are counted as internal stakeholders of the university then. A training partner can be a FPO or NPO that provides a study place, can carry out the course of study according to academic requirements, and can prove this to a professor as program coordinator. In addition, the provision of a study place must match the capacity on campus. The campus university council elects the head of campus and the head of a campus school. Then, a campus senate weighs in on filling proposals for local management positions (head of campus, head of school) and coordinates the work of the campus schools from an interdisciplinary perspective. Further, the campus senate must approve proposals for professorships. Finally, campus executive committees, campus school councils of professors, and quality circles on the level of courses of study and fields of study are concerned with organization, quality, didactics, and special topics concerning the implementation of CSPs. Table 5.1 provides an overview based on our presented committee system and its characteristics. Analysis of the composition of the committees Finally, we present the composition of committees in more depth. The more indepth analysis was relevant to determine which stakeholders are represented in which committee and their number of seats. Thus, the analysis indicates stakeholder influence opportunities on CPSs and, as such, third mission governance. Through the composition of committees, we address the question of how these committees are constituted by their seats. Composition of overall organization committees In the senate, professors hold the majority of seats. This is a common constellation for universities, as the senate represents the highest academic body. Also, German higher education law ensures the professors’ specific control rights for their university. For the allocation of seats, the professors’ affiliation to a department is not relevant. Representatives of the FPOs and NPOs are also represented in the senate, which is remarkable and forms a unique feature. Students and the group of “other” employees (employees in the non-scientific area) represent the smallest group within the senate. Finally, the university president chairs the senate, and elections determine the senate’s composition. On the supervisory board, representatives of FPOs and NPOs hold the majority of seats. The votes of professors and students correlate to only one seat each. The chairmanship of the supervisory board regularly alternates between a representative

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

179

Tab. 5.1 Overview of the committee system and its functions Organizational level

Level of analysis

Classification of major task

Type of committee

Committee

Central level

Meso level

make a formal decision

overall organization

senate supervisory board executive board (presidium)

Cross-campus level

Meso level

prepare the decision

cross-campus

expert commissions subcommissions (link to expert commissions) quality assurance commission

Campus level

Study program level

Meso level

Micro level

advise, campus supervise and support (formal character)

campus senates

advise, supervise and support (less formal character)

campus school councils of professors

campus

campus supervisory boards campus executive boards

quality circles company representative meetings

Note. Authors’ representation.

of the Ministry of Science and a representative of the FPOs and NPOs. Currently, the Minister of Science holds the chair, which is again remarkable and shapes a special feature as well. The supervisory board is appointed by a selection committee consisting of members of the senate and representatives of the science ministry. The executive committee represents three status groups of the university: holders of a professorship keep three offices, a representative who stands for the interests of the state administration holds one office, which is the office of the chancellor of the case study university, and, finally, a representative of a FPO or NPO fills one office, which is again remarkable and a special feature. Elections determine the composition of the executive committee, and the electoral bodies are the senate and the supervisory board in a joint meeting.

180

5

Results

Composition of cross-campus committees The notion of expert commissions refers to one committee for the Department of Business, one for the Department of Engineering, one for the Department of Social Work, and one for the Department of Health Sciences. The expert commissions are described in the Higher Education Act and therefore have a highly formal character. Elections and appointments determine the composition of the expert commissions. The expert commissions are made up of equal numbers of professors and FPO and NPO representatives (regarding the number of seats). We recall that expert commissions are where curricula of study programs and associated examinations are prepared for joint decision-making according to common academic standards. From this, it can be concluded that professors and FPOs and NPOs have an equal share of influence on the development of the study offers due to the same number of seats. Although students are represented, they play a minor role in terms of the number of seats. Second, subcommissions of the expert commissions serve the networking of the professors who are program coordinators on individual campuses. They bring program coordinators together on a technical and content level in the sense of a coordination unit. The composition of these types of committees has a more informal character. Each subcommission has a chairperson from the ranks of professorial program coordinators. The subcommittees are structured according to the range of courses and fields of study, and program coordinators involve the respective local contact persons from the FPOs and NPOs. Professors are members due to their function, and representatives from FPOs and NPOs can participate due to their university membership. Based on the documents, the subcommissions’ exact composition remains unclear. However, it transpired that the subcommissions play a vital role in gathering and implementing ideas for amendments or innovations for study programs. Third, the quality assurance commission is dedicated to ensuring the quality of studies and teaching. It consists of roughly equal numbers of professors, students, and representatives from FPOs and NPOs. They are appointed from the ranks of the expert commissions. Furthermore, the university’s vice president (executive committee) chairs the quality assurance commission. Composition of campus committees First, a so-called “campus university council” represents the structural composition of a campus in the sense of a location or subsidiary. Within a campus university council, professors and representatives from FPOs and NPOs hold the majority of the seats in equal proportions. The group of students and other employees holds only a few seats. Within the group of professors, the seats are distributed according to

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

181

the disciplinary campus schools in equal proportions. A representative of a profit or non-profit organization holds the chairmanship. A professorial representative holds the deputy chairmanship. Elections constitute the campus university council. One may conclude that in the subject area of the campus university council, professors and FPO and NPO representatives have an equal share of influence. The status groups of a “university location” of the DHBW (campus) are represented in a “campus senate.” The group of professors has the most seats. The remaining seats are divided between non-academic employees and students; the latter are represented with the fewest number of seats. It is remarkable that within the group of professors, the seats are distributed according to the disciplinary campus schools in equal proportions. The “head of campus” chairs the campus senate. The campus senate is formed by elections. Finally, one may conclude that the professors possess the most influence in that committee. A “campus executive board” consists of the head of campus, the heads of disciplinary schools, and the administrative management of a campus. The head of a campus chairs the campus executive board, and members are recruited by election and appointment. The central structure of the university is mirrored here in terms of content and structure. Moreover, it is remarkable that the posts of head of campus and heads of schools are exclusively held by professors, and only they can apply for it. Finally, one may conclude that a campus is under the operative control of professors and thus under their influence. A “campus school council of professors” is located within a disciplinary campus school and accompanies and advises the head of school. It is constituted by the professors of the campus school and thus provides formal influence for the professors, is derived from the university’s basic order (Grundordnung), and functions as a collegial body. In addition, the committee makes an election proposal for the appointment of a professor to the respective expert commission. Fifth, the statutes of the quality management system (of the DHBW) recommend the establishment of so-called quality circles. Those quality circles operate on the level of courses of study and fields of study. They are composed of professors, students, lecturers, and representatives from FPOs and NPOs stemming from the day-to-day business of CSPs. The respective program coordinator appoints the members and coordinates regular meetings. The quality circles provide feedback on the perceived quality of study programs and the direct development and implementation of measures to improve teaching quality. Thus, a representative cross-section of the stakeholders involved in a CSP has the opportunity to exert influence on the execution of study programs. At the end of this section, we present and discuss committees that have not been formally defined. However, all interviews repeatedly mentioned them as an

182

5

Results

important instrument for the day-to-day business of CSPs: about once per semester, program coordinators organize a “company representative meeting” (the designation used in the business and engineering departments) or “instructors’ meeting” (the designation used in the social work and health sciences departments) for the FPOs and NPOs cooperating in their study program or field of study. Consequently, the committee consists of one or more program coordinators and representatives of FPOs and NPOs. A program coordinator is responsible for maintaining this type of committee. It covers all issues relating to the implementation of CSPs in the context of the relations between university and industry. Therefore, one may conclude that both sides, professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs, exert influence on CSPs implementation. However, as this type of committee is not mentioned in official documents, one may ascribe it a degree of informality. Further, there is also a regular exchange meeting for part-time lecturers. This committee deals with questions of teaching quality, didactics, and technical and content issues of CSPs. These take place at the level of a course of study or field of study and are organized by a program coordinator. According to reports from the university, up to 60 percent of teaching is covered by part-time lecturers (e.g., stemming from industry or other higher education institutions). This committee was deemed essential since it is the quality of teaching that is at stake. However, this type of committee is not mentioned in any official documents of the university. Yet, it became repeatedly topic in the interviews (foremost with program coordinators). Consequently, this committee has a more informal character. Thus, one may conclude that professors and part-time lecturers exert influence on the teaching of CSPs via this type of informal committee. Finally, it should also be noted that professorships are filled by an “appointment committee.” The composition of such an appointment committee incorporates professors, which hold the majority of seats, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and students. Thus, representatives of FPOs and NPOs may influence professorship appointments to some extent because of their presence. Furthermore, appointing a professorship requires the approval of a campus senate and a senate statement on the central organizational level. In addition, an agreement with the responsible division of the science ministry must be obtained. Interim conclusions We have gathered the following insights: the degree of formalization of the committees and their composition decreases from top to bottom. The possibilities for stakeholder participation in committees are extensive and diverse across all organizational levels of the university. One may conclude that the university’s committee system is tailored to the university’s mission, namely the provision and delivery

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

183

of CSPs. This has been reflected in the presence of representatives of FPOs and NPOs (industry) in virtually all university committees. In essence, the professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs have a high degree of influence due to the committee structure. This has been reflected, for example, in the number of seats within the university committees. The distribution of seats between professors (university) and representatives from FPOs and NPOs (industry) is roughly equal, although professors have a slight advantage due to the legal situation in Germany. One can draw several conclusions from this: one, that the university has made its committee structures more flexible concerning its mission; second, that the university’s committee system forms a salient place for the organization of the cooperative relationship between the university’s stakeholders. Finally, it was also found that in the status group of professors, according to the number of seats, all academic disciplines have the same influence, regardless of their size. Hence, it can be stated that professors must share their influence on CSPs with the representatives of FPOs and NPOs.

5.1.2

Stakeholders of CSPs and their Characteristics

In our dissertation, stakeholders of CSPs refer to the main stakeholder groups of CSPs. Each stakeholder group has authorized representatives that are necessary for the functioning of CSPs and, thus, third mission governance. Based on a conducted stakeholder analysis on CSPs, these include professors, students, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and representatives from the administrative and policy spheres. In the following, we present a portrait of each stakeholder group based on our data analysis. The portrait has the purpose of characterizing the most important insights in the case of CSPs.

5.1.2.1 Professors Aspects of legal status As a first step, we discuss the position of a professor at a university. In general, professors in Germany are by law civil servants of a federal state (Bundesland). The German basic law (Grundgesetz) guarantees the freedom of teaching and research, and the respective Higher Education Act of a federal state assigns professors’ tasks to be performed independently. Depending on the profile of the position and the type of university, the so-called W-salary-system (W-Besoldung) provides a classification from one to three (W1, W2, W3). The classification level W1 refers to junior professorships, the classification level W2 mainly refers to professorships of UAS, and the classification level W3 refers to university professorships or Professorships

184

5

Results

in Collaborative Research Centers In the event of a UAS, a W2-salary for a professorship is the norm. Our data have shown that this also the case for professorships at the DHBW. Consequently, the basic requirements for a full-time professorship at the DHBW are comparable with those of UAS. Aspects of teaching obligation The legislative body differentiates within the regulations for teaching obligations: in general, the governmental regulations for each federal state determine the obligation to teach. For Baden-Wuerttemberg (BW), the teaching commitment of professorships at traditional research-oriented universities contains, in general, nine semester hours per week (one semester hour per week comprises 45 minutes). In contrast, the teaching load at UAS I, with 18 semester hours per week, twice as high. The regulation lists the teaching obligation for the DHBW separately. We assumed that this underlines the particular position of the university and thus of the CSPs. In total, the teaching obligation of a professor at the DHBW contains 576 hours of instruction (one hour of instruction is measured in 45 minutes units as well) per academic year (covering two semesters). It is notable that the reference frame measures “study years” or academic years and semesters. Thus, one may conclude that this indicates a different system of study program organization. Converting the obligatory teaching hours of the DHBW to those of the UAS system results in the same amount of obligatory course hours. Thus, one may conclude that a DHBW professorship is equal to a professorship at a UAS. Both share a high teaching load which reflects the teaching-oriented mission of those types of HEIs. Aspects of professors’ participation in academic self-administration In general, professors can take part in the academic self-administration of their “domestic” university. The tasks of academic self-administration include service, for example, assuming certain offices or functions or becoming involved in university committees. Depending on the tasks they take on, professors can reduce their teaching obligations or receive compensation for their engagement. However, each university regulates these issues autonomously within the framework statute law. Consequently, arrangements differ from university to university. This was also the case in our study: professors at the DHBW assume and hold various offices, functions, and responsibilities in the domain of academic selfadministration. To obtain these, they first apply individually, followed by the formal appointment or election to offices regulated in the university statutes of the DHBW. Concerning our research questions, we focused on three offices and functions of professorships concerning CSPs: first, that of program coordinator, second an office in university management (and here in particular head of school, head of campus,

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

185

and member of the executive committee) and third, as elected or appointed member of a university committee. Interviewees mentioned these three offices and functions to be important for the functioning of CSPs. Aspects of obtaining a professorship At this point, a brief description of obtaining a professorship at the DHBW is necessary: at the level of a campus school,1 a scientist with a specific field of expertise is sought for teaching and research. The advertisement assigns the professor to a specific academic discipline2 and a relevant subject area therein. Then, a professor is appointed to the respective campus school (within a campus in the sense of a location or subsidiary). Three areas are particularly important for a professorship at the DHBW: teaching experience, industrial experience, and scientific suitability. Thus, one part is to bring along motivation for teaching and research in the context of the dual principle of the university type (whereby teaching is foregrounded). The other part is to be open-minded to take part in service and work in a system of academic self-administration. Identification and characterization of the function of a program coordinator The professor as “program coordinator” (Studiengangsleitung) denotes a specific function whose duties are described in detail in the Higher Education Act (Landeshochschulgesetz) of BW as well as in internal university documents (e.g., university guidelines on the role and activity of a program coordinator). The mere fact that the law and other documents define this function demonstrates the high importance of the program coordinator. A program coordinator is recruited from the ranks of DHBW professors, and the role’s duties are assigned by campus-level university management (head of campus). Additionally, the campus senate is involved in the appointment procedure, which is carried out as follows: The head of campus appoints the program coordinator by recommendations of the campus senate and the respective head of school. The term of office is six years and has to be renewed every six years. In addition, it is worth mentioning that a professor—depending on his or her performance—may be appointed to program coordinator function any number of times. For the execution of the tasks of a program coordinator, an appointed professor receives a fifty percent reduction of his or her teaching load. The norm is that 1

In the DHBW context a campus school is located at the decentralized level of the university and associated to a certain academic discipline which is organized in a cross-campus department at the central level of the university. 2 At the DHBW in the academic disciplines of business, engineering, social work and health sciences.

186

5

Results

a program coordinator supervises a course and the corresponding field of study and assumes responsibility for the related student cohort of up to 90 students. The core tasks of a program coordinator comprise: being the main contact person for students, part-time lecturers, and representatives from FPOs and NPOs; attracting and supporting FPOs and NPOs as well as students within the jurisdiction of their course and field of study; bearing responsibility for curriculum development within the framework of university committee work; taking over the evaluation of studies and teaching and providing quality reporting for their university management; and, finally, responsibility for the organization of their assigned course of study/field of study and examinations. For example, the program coordinator designs an individual study plan for their assigned group of students based on a framework study plan. Here, aspects of the field of study and the requirements of the FPOs and NPOs represented in the group play a role. As such, the responsibility for the quality of the study program lies with the program coordinator. He or she is responsible for quality assurance and any further development of their assigned study program. This makes clear that program coordinators are responsible for developing and maintaining the curricula of CSPs. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that program coordinators network across campuses (in the sense of location or a subsidiary) in subcommissions of their course or field of study. Here, they deal with the joint development of study programs, and subcommissions are assigned to respective expert commissions. Furthermore, program coordinators report on the results of their work to their head of school and the campus committees (campus university council, campus senate). One may conclude that program coordinators play a crucial role in developing, implementing, and delivering CSPs. They are responsible for the content and didactic design of the CSPs. Thus, they have a strong influence on the content of CSPs. However, the extent of this influence is hampered by being dependent on the appointment by the head of the campus and the duty to report to the head of school and the campus committees. Identification and characterization of university management at the campus level Professors in the office of “university management” in the DHBW context are presented below. One can distinguish between university management at the campus and university management at the central level (presidium). The function of university management manifests itself in various positions filled by professors for a certain time. In addition, the professors are elected to the offices, which means they also have to undergo an election procedure. The offices in university management are defined by higher education law. One may conclude from this that these offices

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

187

are of great importance for the university’s internal governance system and thus have an impact on CSPs. Our exploration started at the campus level, where we identified a head of campus and head of school as two types of university management offices. A DHBW campus typically consists of several campus schools that are represented on the campus executive committee through their “head of campus school.” Together with the campus senate and campus university council, the head of a campus school has an obligation to report to the head of campus. The campus university council elects the head of a campus school, yet during the election, the campus senate and the head of campus have to be heard. Moreover, the presidium is obligated to conduct the election procedure. This shows a dependency on the central level. The office of a head of school is elected for a certain period and can be reelected. The head of school coordinates all matters relating to the campus school assigned to him or her. The focus is on academic topics such as supervising the orderly flow of studies and teaching or utilizing study place capacities. In addition, they represent and advocate the academic interests of their campus school in the expert commission of said campus school. They also promote decision-making concerning new study programs or amendments within existing study programs. The main contact persons of a head of school are program coordinators, FPO and NPO representatives, student representatives, representatives of the ministry or members of the university management, and representatives of local and regional politics. The office of head of campus is held by a professor and is elected for a certain period by the campus university council. However, it also contains a representative function for the presidium. This shows the dual nature of this office: on the one hand, it represents the interests of their campus and represents it in the related region. On the other hand, the person is an agent of the presidium and jointly responsible for coordinating the interests of the entire organization (in line with other heads of campus and the executive committee). They bear the overall responsibility for the campus and are obligated to report the results of the work of the campus to the presidium and the campus committees. This includes, for example, reporting on the utilization of study place capacities or reports on the further development of the range of courses offered. The presidium’s obligation to conduct the election procedure shows a dependency on the central level. The office of a head of campus is elected for a certain period and can be re-elected. Together with the heads of schools, they control the subordinate campus. The main contact persons of a head of campus are the heads of campus schools, program coordinators, FPO and NPO representatives, student representatives, representatives of the ministry or members of the university management, and representatives of local and regional politics. Furthermore, each head

188

5

Results

of campus is a member of the extended executive committee on the central level (presidium) and is in a regular exchange with the university president and his or her office. Identification and characterization of university management at the central level Concerning the central level, we examined the presidium where the executive committee of the multi-campus university is located. The executive committee is constituted by five elected offices: president, vice-president, chancellor, presidium member of the professors, and presidium member of the FPOs and NPOs. According to the Higher Education Act, the executive committees’ tasks are more of a strategic nature and comprise assuming responsibility for the implementation of the strategic course of the university, supervising the campuses’ activities, and bearing an obligation to report to the senate and the supervisory board as well as to the responsible division of the science ministry on the results of the multi-campus university’s operations. All offices are elected and designed for a specific term of office. The senate and the supervisory board are involved in the election of the president, vice-president, and chancellor. The department at the Ministry of Science is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the election procedure for these three offices. One may conclude that this indicates a high degree of influence on the election procedure from the side of the Ministry of Science. The senate and the supervisory board exclusively determine the additional positions of the members of the presidium. The president represents the university externally and internally. In addition, the extended executive committee forms the link to the campuses as it also represents the heads of campus. Finally, the main contact persons of the executive board members are top-level FPO and NPO representatives, top-level student representatives, leadership representatives of the science ministry, members of university management, and top representatives from local and regional politics. Finally, university management members3 are represented as committee members by virtue of their office, meaning they have an official seat, a vote on the respective committee, and can influence through their voting rights. This opens up the possibility of forming alliances or coalitions with other committee members and reveals the role and dynamics of interest representation in their own right. Possible interests for professors in a university management function may lie in increasing the capacity utilization of a particular degree program or establishing a new field or even course of study. 3

Refers to both: centralized and decentralized levels of DHBW.

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

189

Identification and characterization of professors as committee members We refer to the function of professors as elected or appointed members of a university committee. Statutes and the law regulate the composition of all types of university committees. According to the Higher Education Act, the professors’ vote must be represented by a majority on virtually all university committees. This allows all professors of the university to be elected to committees and offers the opportunity to exert influence. The right to vote enables professors to represent their interests and network with other professors in the committees to form alliances or coalitions. With regard to the strategic course of CSPs, the senate, supervisory board, expert commissions, and campus committees play a vital role. Further, FPOs and NPOs are also represented on university committees with their vote. This opens up the possibility of forming alliances or coalitions with their representatives. Possible interests and resulting topics for the professors include technical topics and research interests, which might be exemplified in a proposal on a new curriculum or an amendment to an existing curriculum. Another possibility would be setting up a laboratory for didactic purposes to promote a specific teaching field. Interim conclusions Concerning the professors and their offices and functions, we can so far conclude that these are geared to the needs of CSPs. This is reflected in two functions and offices—the program coordinator (see Table 5.2)—and the university management (see Table 5.3): First, at the micro level, a professor in the function of a program coordinator assumes responsibility for a group of students and the associated degree course. Hence, a program coordinator constitutes an interface in the direction of students, FPOs and NPOs, part-time lecturers, and academic colleagues. As such, a program coordinator is an “intermediary” dealing with stakeholders’ expectations concerning CSPs. Furthermore, a program coordinator is responsible for the professional and didactic development of the CSPs. Eventually, their role is as much that of a “conductor of the curriculum” (maintenance of day-to-day operations) as it is an “editor of the curriculum” (inclusion of impulses in the curricula). In the context of their work within the expert and subcommissions, they fulfill a “stewardship role” that is based on the active promotion of interests for their course of study or field of study within the DHBW. Finally, one may conclude that he or she acts as a “guardian of academic quality.” This role relates primarily to monitoring compliance with academic norms and standards in the teaching of CSPs. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the detected roles and influence areas of the program coordinator concerning CSPs.

190

5

Results

Tab. 5.2 Summary of program coordinator’s roles and influence areas Stakeholder group

Formal position

Level of analysis

Center of interaction

Detected roles

Influence area

Professors

Program coordinator

Micro level

Study program, Campus

Intermediary, Conductor of study programs, Guardian of academic quality

Delivery and implementation of study programs according to appropriate academic standards

Meso level

Committees

Editor/author of curricula, Steward of assigned course of study and/or field of study

Development of new and adaptation of existing study programs according to appropriate academic standards

Note. Authors’ representation.

Second, at the meso level, professors in university management offices accompany and promote CSPs and their (further) development. Their office has to exert “capacity control or capacity management,” which entails a reporting obligation on capacity utilization towards superior authorities. In this mission, they appear as “rapporteurs” in the direction of the presidium and the ministry. Furthermore, professors in university management assume the role of “academic supervisor” regarding the development and implementation of new CSPs and are available to the program coordinators as reflection partners for CSP innovation. Altogether, professors are “representatives” of their campus schools (departments), campus, and the entire university. They also represent their stakes in the university committee system and therefore appear as “facilitators” when it comes to the introduction of new study programs or amendments to them. Table 5.3 provides a summary of detected roles and influence areas of university management professors concerning CSPs.

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

191

Tab. 5.3 Summary of university management professor’s roles and influence areas Stakeholder Formal group position Professors

Level of Center of analysis interaction

University Meso management level

Detected roles

Influence area

University, Representative/facilitator, Internal and Campus, Rapporteur, Capacity external Committees control representation, regional representation, coordination of professors and study program proposals

Note. Authors’ representation.

In addition, professors can also appear as elected members of the university’s committee system, leading to the assumption that they fulfill this role as “representatives of interests” and facilitators. The position depends on various objectives, such as subject-specific concerns, academic concerns, status-group concerns, or campus concerns. The position of program coordinator and university management offices appear in separate sections of the BW Higher Education Act. Hence, we conclude that the legislative body (government) used its regulatory competence to promote the specific delivery of CSP.

5.1.2.2 Students According to our research, students in CSPs can be identified with two areas: first, as regular participants in a CSP (enrollment at university and employment contract with the FPO or NPO), and second, as representatives of the student body in a university committee. This means that they experience the university from two perspectives: that of the course of their studies and that of the university’s committee work in which they represent their interests. Aspects of students’ access to CSPs and the resulting dual status At this point, we present and discuss the student perspective of participation in a CSP. Prospective students should meet the following requirements for enrolment: first, prospective students need a place for a CSP in one of the cooperating FPOs or NPOs. They undergo an application process for such a place in the chosen profit or non-profit organization. If they succeed, the student and the profit or non-profit organization (also known as the training company) enter into a contract for a CSP.

192

5

Results

With a valid contract and the fulfillment of specific admission requirements (provided by the university), students can enroll in a certain CSP (course of study and/or field of study) on a campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the DHBW. The admission requirements include general or subject-specific university entrance qualifications (Abitur, Fachabitur) and a valid contract with a cooperating profit or non-profit organization. If prospective students meet all these requirements, they qualify for enrolment. Accordingly, students are in a dual role, both as properly enrolled students at the DHBW and employees at their contracting party, the FPO or NPO cooperating with the DHBW. Aspects of student participation in academic self-administration During the course of studies, students can become involved in the academic selfadministration of the university. This includes, for example, participation in the context of student representation and makes them representatives of student interests in university governance. The different levels of the DHBW as a multi-campus university come into play here since student representation is organized and arranged along with the university’s organizational structure. These include one representative office of the student council at the central level of the DHBW and several representative offices of the student council at the campus locations of the DHBW as a multi-campus university. Therefore, we describe and discuss the opportunities for students participation from bottom to top: The norm is that students are enrolled and pursue their studies in a group with 30 students either as part of a course or field of study and thus participate in the degree program. At that level, the program coordinator is the primary contact person for students on the side of the university. On the cooperating FPO’s or NPO’s side, their main contact person is a “training officer” or “practical supervisor.” In the context of their student group within a certain study program, students elect a “student group spokesperson.” This process is accompanied by student representation at a campus. The cross-group organization of student group spokespersons takes place at the level of a campus school where a spokesperson for the campus school is elected. At the campus level, each campus school has an elected campus school spokesperson, from which, then, a “campus spokesperson” for the entirety of students on the campus is elected. This campus spokesperson is in loose contact with the head of campus (professor) and the executive board behind them. Furthermore, student representatives are elected or appointed and sent to campus committees (campus university council, campus senate).

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

193

At the cross-campus level of the university, student representation is organized in the General Students’ Committee (Allgemeiner Studierendenausschuss, AStA) that elects and delegates student representatives for the cross-campus committees and general organization committees (senate, supervisory board). Further, students have established a student parliament. Thus, from a formal perspective, it seems like students are involved at all levels of their university and have the opportunity to participate in higher education governance and thus exert influence. Finally, the students’ roles as stakeholders of CSPs can be summarized to cover three areas: first, students are a contracting party with a cooperating FPO or NPO and, therefore, employees. Second, students are enrolled at university and thus regular students. Third, students are representatives of their concerns and organized in an officially recognized student representative body. Regarding the third aspect, the students are elected or appointed as representatives to a respective university committee and thus obtain a certain number of seats. Each seat stands for a vote and a committee member’s right to vote. One may conclude that this enables students to influence CSP matters, the university, and its campuses to a certain extent. Consequently, student representatives can, for example, build alliances or coalitions with other committee members to push through a specific agenda. Possible interests and resulting topics for students may include improving the teaching and learning conditions in the CSPs. This has been reflected in proposals, e.g., for improving the payment of part-time lecturers or expanding the range of e-books (both examples were mentioned in interviews with student representatives). Interim conclusion One can distinguish between regularly enrolled students attending CSPs and student representatives participating in the university’s committee system. We treated the group of students as one unit of investigation and were able to identify the following roles. First, as regularly enrolled students, they experience the quality of a course of study and/or a field of study resulting in the part of “feedback provider.” Second, the identified dual role containing two legal statuses—that of student and employee— implied a kind of “customer” role. The dominance of the employee position that emerged from data analysis and the fact that students receive a monthly salary supports this perception. Third, students appeared as “interest representatives” within the university’s committee system, which the student initiatives mentioned as examples in the interviews demonstrated. Table 5.4 summarizes the roles taken on by students and their influence on CSPs.

194

5

Results

Tab. 5.4 Summary of student’s roles and influence areas Stakeholder Formal group position Students

Level of Center of analysis interaction

Detected roles

Influence area

Student of a Micro study program level

Study program, campus

Customer (feedback Up to date provision) education, evaluation of the study programs, and connections towards master’s degree

Student Meso representation level delegate

Campus, Lobbyist/facilitator, Guarantee of committees customer (feedback participation provision) rights and gaining feedback

Note. Authors’ representation.

5.1.2.3 FPO and NPO Representatives FPOs and NPOs that provide one or several study places (training places) in a CSP associated with the DHBW gain official university membership. This comes with the right to elect and delegate representatives to the university’s system of committees. The Higher Education Act in BW also regulates this. The university membership status constitutes a characteristic of the DHBW and was highlighted by a majority of the interviewees, suggesting that FPOs and NPOs had been transformed from external to internal stakeholders of the university. Aspects of FPOs’ and NPOs’ access to CSPs We pursued the question of how FPOs and NPOs can formally gain access to university membership. Laws and statutes issued by the university regulate this process. They state that a profit or non-profit organization has the opportunity to gain a university membership status by sending one or several students into one or several CSPs. For this purpose, FPOs and NPOs must submit to an approval procedure. The process takes place at the campus level, and a program coordinator carries out the examination. The FPO and NPO must prove their capability to conduct a CSP through fulfilling test criteria. These include, for example, supervision by a person

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

195

with an academic background appointed by the FPO and NPO (practice supervisor) for the duration of the course and/or field of study, a guarantee of professional training based on the curricula (relating to the course and/or field of study), appropriate remuneration as well as support in the preparation of scientific papers (project thesis, bachelor thesis). Further, the number of study places provided must match the university’s capacities at one or several campuses. Finally, the program coordinator formally applies to the campus university council for their admission as a training partner if the requirements are met. The FPO or NPO is then approved and, therefore, has become a member of the university. It is significant that this procedure is carried out at the campus level (rooted in a certain campus school and the related course of study and/or field of study). Vice versa, this means that the FPO or NPO has to decide on the placement of the qualification measure (CSP). FPOs and NPOs thus experience the university and the quality of the range of CSPs in the context of a campus and, more precisely, at the level of a course of study and/or field of study (micro level); the first point of contact is the program coordinator there. Aspects of locating responsibility for CSPs within FPOs and NPOs Within a FPO or NPO, the personnel department or the training department carries out the coordination of CSPs. It is, for example, represented by HR managers or training officers. In addition, a practical instructor, as well as a supervisor in each department, can supervise the students. This depends on the size of the FPO or NPO. In most cases, a permanent contact person for students and the program coordinator is available. The data we analyzed confirmed this. A special training contract regulates the relation between FPOs, NPOs, and students. The university provides the contract, which is drawn up in a collaborative process between the FPOs and NPOs via university committee work. Aspects of FPOs and NPOs as co-organizers of CPSs The “permanent establishment” of a FPO or NPO constitutes a learning venue with a defined duration (phase) within the curriculum of a CSP. In total, students spend one and a half years in the so-called “practice phase” of their course and/or field of study. During that time (practice-integrated model of CSPs), learning venues alternate every three months between the university (campus level) and the permanent establishment of a FPO or NPO (industry). Our data revealed that practice phases are an integral part of CSP curricula. Therefore, they are also defined as modules including learning goals and competence goals and receive a certain amount of ECTS credit points. Thus, university and FPOs and NPOs (industry) shape curricula jointly and design study plans and training plans on that basis. As such, their

196

5

Results

role is crucial and leads to the conclusion that FPOs and NPOs (industry) are “active co-designers of CSPs” with a high degree of influence on issues of conception and content. Aspects of FPOs and NPOs as co-organizers of CPSs The permanent establishment of a FPO or NPO constitutes a learning venue, and this learning venue has a defined period of time (phase) within a curriculum of a CSP. In total, students spend one and a half years in the practice phase of their course of study and/or field of study. During the course of study, the learning venues university (campus level) and permanent establishment of a FPO or NPO (industry) alternate every three months (practice-integrated model of CSPs). Our data revealed that practice phases are an integral part of CSP curricula. Therefore, practical phases have also been defined as modules including learning goals and competence goals and receive a certain amount of ECTS credit points. Thus, university and FPOs and NPOs (industry) shape curricula jointly and depict study plans and training plans on that basis. Therefore, the role of FPOs and NPOs (industry) role is very important: one may conclude from this that FPOs and NPOs (industry) are active co-designers of CSPs with a high degree of influence on issues of conception and contents. The aspect of CSPs as an investment decision for the participating FPOs and NPOs The following subsection briefly addresses what is involved in providing a CSP study place and implementing a course of studies according to the university’s requirements for FPOs and NPOs. We recap: the provision of a study place entails, first, a matching study place or several study places in the capacities of the university; second, the implementation of the practical phase in the facility (permanent establishment) of the FPO or NPO; third, the payment of students for the duration of a CSP (three years or six semesters); fourth, the supervision of the practical phase by a “practical supervisor;” and fifth, the availability as a part-time lecturer for the university. This seems to be a high expenditure for FPOs and NPOs. In other words, it constitutes an investment for FPOs and NPOs and is thus tied to the expectation of a return of investment. A numerical example based on the data illustrates the investment: according to the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs interviewed, each student employed in a cooperative study program at one of the operating sites is budgeted at approximately 25,000 euros per year. Thus, the total

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

197

investment amounts to approximately 75,000 euros per student4 in a cooperative study program for the duration of a bachelor program (3 years plus lead time). The monthly salary for the students stands for an investment in humans. We argue that this type of investment establishes a “customer” role on the part of the FPOs and NPOs. This line of argumentation is fed from a business perspective to make the decision and role of FPOs and NPOs clearer: participation in a CSP is a conscious and well-considered decision on the side of the FPOs and NPOs. The aspect of a person responsible for CSPs in the participating FPOs and NPOs In the day-to-day business of CSPs, the training officer (or HR manager) and the program coordinator are in constant dialogue. In addition, joint coordination of study and training plans takes place based on curricular frameworks. Periodically, in annual or biannual meetings—so-called “company representative meetings” or “instructor’s meetings”—FPO and NPO representatives have the opportunity to push their main topics concerning the implementation of CSPs on the agenda. One may conclude that FPO and NPO representatives use this opportunity to provide valuable feedback on their experience of study program quality. These are the points of contact where their influence is established. In addition, program coordinators engage with representatives of FPOs and NPOs at the subcommission level on issues of future curricular developments to gather valuable feedback on proposals for new or amendments to existing curricula. The aspect of participation in committee work by FPO and NPO representatives Further, representatives of FPOs and NPOs appear as elected or appointed members in one or several university committees, allocating them a number of seats and, therefore, the right to vote. As such, representatives of FPOs and NPOs have the opportunity to exert influence on university governance and CSPs and shape alliances or coalitions to pursue their interests. For example, this may entail focusing on the standardization and comparability of courses and fields of study, or passing a resolution on the need for a qualification offer for a particular course and/or field of study and the associated capacity of study places (examples stemming from interviews). 4

Transferred to the overall context of the case study university, at which approximately 33,000 students are currently enrolled in CSPs, this results in an investment volume of approximately 830 million euros per year (25,000 euros per year × 33,000 students) which is provided by the FPOs and NPOs for CSPs. In comparison, the basic budget of the case study university, which is provided by the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, is approximately 120 million euros per year (Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2020).

198

5

Results

Aspects of corporate lobbying for CSPs in BW This subsection briefly illuminates the role of the FPOs and NPOs in the university environment within BW as an economic region. Here, employers’ associations exert influence on higher education policy at the state level to foster CSPs in the context of further economic progress and well-being. This usually requires lobbying representatives from BW’s higher education policy regularly and systematically. On the state side, this includes members of the state parliament, the science committee, and high-ranking representatives of the ministries (universities, industry, state ministry). Our data have shown that CSPs play an important role in the lobbying strategies of the employers’ associations. This was embedded in an overall strategy in which other types of higher education institutions also play an important role. The role of CSPs lies mainly in attracting and securing skilled workers for the regional economy. Interim conclusion Finally, we draw an interim conclusion and summarize the repertoire of roles of FPOs and NPOs (see Table 5.5). First, FPOs and NPOs make a conscious decision to provide a certain number of study places to recruit young talent, arguably casting them in the role of gatekeeper. Since without this conscious decision no students would be studying in CSPs, and because FPOs and NPOs perceive the cooperation as an investment (in turn expecting a return on investment), they also fulfill the role of “customer.” Second, by implementing CSPs, FPOs and NPOs are responsible for the practical part of the study program. We found this to be an integral part of the curriculum, making FPOs and NPOs active co-designers of CSPs. Accordingly, FPOs and NPOs are also providers of feedback regarding their experience of the program quality and ideas for improvement or innovation. Finally, our data also suggest that FPOs and NPOs included CSPs in their human resources strategies. Consequently, FPOs and NPOs have an interest in maintaining the range of CSP offers. This is why they also act as lobbyists for CSPs, influencing policy at the state level with the goal to enhance capacity. Table 5.5 summarizes the roles and influences of FPO and NPO representatives concerning CSPs.

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

199

Tab. 5.5 Summary of for-profit and non-profit organization’s roles and influence areas Stakeholder group

Formal position

Level of Center of analysis interaction

Detected roles

Influence area

Profit and non-profit organization representatives

HR manager, training officer, practical supervisor

Micro level

Gatekeeper, Co-conductor of study programs, Customer (feedback provision)

Provision of study places, training junior staff in line with demand, and evaluation of study programs

Manager, Meso Division level Manager, Delegate, Supervisory Board Co-Chair

Study program, campus

University, Co-designer/-author Influencing campus, of curricula, university committees customer (capacity strategy in request), lobbyist the (representing own direction of interests) developing study programs and content requests

Note. Authors’ representation.

One may conclude that FPOs and NPOs face a dual role as, on the one hand, they represent their own interests which are also perceived as business interests. On the other hand, they are members of the university (transition from external to internal stakeholder) and thus also represent university interests. Both types of interests are not always compatible, which may be a source for conflicts of interest.

5.1.2.4 Government and Policy Representatives The stakeholder group of the so-called government and policy representatives was identified to be broad and diverse. Based on our data, we refer to three main functions detected: first, the government supervisory function, second, the particular role of the supervisory board and its chair, and third, the function of policy support and advice concerning CSPs.

200

5

Results

Aspects of the government supervisory function concerning CSPs Regarding the government supervisory functions, we disclosed two on different institutionally anchored sides. On the one hand, the function of a university chancellor is embedded within the university. According to the Higher Education Act, a chancellor is responsible for budget and personnel management in general. We argue that this meets traditional tasks of public administration and that the art of executing this function lies in reconciling the individual interests of the university and its members with state requirements and regulations. In connection with the DHBW, the office of a chancellor is embedded in a collegial executive board of the university. Like a mirror unit, the chancellor works with so-called heads of administration at the campus level, who are their contact persons in administrative matters. On the other hand, the supervision of legal issues, general top-level supervision of the university, and the supervision of filling the university’s top management positions and matters of university funding are represented by the responsible department in the science ministry. According to statements issued by the division of the Ministry of Science, they provide the link between the university as an institution and higher education policy at the state level. Thus, one may conclude that this division fulfills an intermediary function. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that it must give its consent in many matters concerning the university, e.g., to filling professors’ positions or setting up new courses of study. Thus, one may conclude that the ministry has a significant and influential function concerning CSPs, suggesting a position as gatekeeper. Aspects of the supervisory board and its characteristics concerning CSP governance This leads us to the university’s supervisory board and its chairmanship. The office of chair alternates between a representative of the FPOs and NPOs and the Ministry of Science. This constitutes a unique feature within the university landscape of BW. Additionally, the division in the science ministry also obtains the function of back-office for the chair of the supervisory board taking on an interface function. Further, a wide range of tasks with high strategic importance was identified within the jurisdiction of the supervisory board of the university, including, for example, the election of full-time executive board members (presidium) in a joint meeting with the senate and resolutions on the structural and development plan of the university, the architectural development of the university, or the university budget. The supervisory board also issues resolutions on proposals for teaching and research equipment and provides statements on the implementation, amendment, or termination of degree courses. The chairperson conducts the meetings and thus

5.1 Structures and Stakeholders Concerning Cooperative Study Programs

201

determines the agenda. Since the ministry as well as FPOs and NPOs hold the chair, one may conclude that both strongly influence university strategy. In addition, the FPOs and NPOs hold the majority of seats in the supervisory board and thus raise the majority of votes. Consequently, this can also have an impact when it comes to filling top management positions at the university. Aspects of policy support and advice concerning CSPs Finally, members of the state parliament, the chairperson of the state parliament’s scientific committee, and representatives of university-related foundations and associations represent the function of higher education policy support and advice. They are either recipients of lobbying or transmitters of specific interests. For our research, these have been related to and concerned with CSPs. We remember that the DHBW is a state-funded university. One may argue that competition for resources (e.g., funding) and influence on legislative procedures (e.g., Higher Education Act) are a subject of lobby work. Thus, the role of the policy sphere is that of “funder” and “rule maker.” This area refers to both government politicians and politicians of the opposition since they decide on the state budget based on their respective functions. In addition, other political functions with a stake in CSPs were also brought to light in the case of a multi-campus—regionally distributed— university. These include, for example, mayors of cities and county councils of districts that host a DHBW campus and members of the city council or delegates for a constituency at the level of the state parliament or the Bundestag. One can assume that all these actors exert influence when it comes to strengthening their position, and in this context, CSPs also play a role. In the interview data, these were frequently associated with securing skilled workers and increasing the attractiveness of a region. Thus, one may conclude that these actors appear as lobbyists and/or as facilitators. They address their concerns to decision-makers in all sectors, be it the university, in FPOs and NPOs, and in the state government. Interim conclusion This stakeholder group is broadly diversified and performs a supervisory function that gathers distinct orientations: first, legal matters belong to the administrative area constituted by the university administration and the responsible division at the Ministry of Science; second, strategic matters incorporate the supervisory board level with its specific design of alternating stakeholders for the chair of the supervisory board. A “gatekeeper” function concerning strategy and reconciliation of interests can be attributed to both. The function further entails external stakeholders from the higher education policy environment. Here, one may conclude that those act as facilitators and lobbyists concerning CSPs. Above all, this refers to

202

5

Results

qualification requirements and the resulting development of the university. Finally, the policy sphere is also reflected within the government and therefore contains the roles of funder and rule-maker. Both roles were found in long-term university funding contracts or legislation procedures on amendments to the Higher Education Act. Table 5.6 summarizes the roles and influences of government and policy representatives concerning CSPs. Tab. 5.6 Summary of government and policy representative’s roles and influence areas Stakeholder group

Formal position

Level of analysis

Center of interaction

Detected roles

Influence area

Government and policy representatives

Ministry Officials, Supervisory Board Chair

Meso level

University, Committees

Rule maker, Financier, Lobbyist

Influencing university strategy in terms of fitting with the higher education system and structural developments

Note. Authors’ representation.

5.2

Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

The previous sections described the structures and their characteristics of our case study university, as well as the core stakeholders and their characteristics related to CSPs. This section is dedicated to the process organization of CSPs and provides a deeper understanding of the action context of stakeholders within the structures shown. To make processes visible, they and their single steps are often recorded in the shape of models. In the context of a university, statutes, guidelines, handouts, recommendations for action, and manuals provide this information. In addition, the interview data gathered provides further clarification for making the process organization of CSPs visible. In our case, these documents give in-depths access to the processes connected to CSPs and, thus, third mission governance. We assumed that information on the process organization of CSPs allowed us insights into stakeholder interactions in the organizational context of CSPs. Therefore, we

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

203

present and depict the most salient processes of CPS in this section. In our case study university, we were able to identify two basic process cycles: The first process cycle deals with the execution of CSPs and the interactions taking place at the program level (micro level). For our representation, we used the student-life-cycle model to visualize the most relevant process steps of CSP operations (first subsection). The second process cycle deals with the university’s management of the CSP study program portfolio, which entails a more strategic perspective at the institutional level (meso level). For our representation, we used the product life cycle model (see operationalization section in Chapter 4) to make the most salient process steps of CSPs portfolio management visible (second subsection). Finally, we pay particular attention to the process of negotiation and decisionmaking concerning all matters of CSPs (see operationalization section in chapter 4). Negotiation and decision-making connect to the subject of academic norms and standards of CSPs and entails both the micro level and the meso level perspective (third subsection).

5.2.1

Insights into the Process Organization at the Program Level

The student life cycle model refers to CSP processes with enrolled students and explains the executions of such a program. The model was used to examine dayto-day operations (micro level) and captures the essential aspects supporting these operations. Figure 5.7 illustrates the student life cycle model and its four phases: application and enrolment, course of studies over six semesters, completion of a course of study (and final exams), and award of the academic degree (see Figure 5.7). The remainder of this subchapter explicates this process in more detail.

5.2.1.1 Process Phase: Application and Enrolment The application and enrolment phase includes gaining access to a CSP, a process which we found has a hybrid character as it necessitates both the student’s and the FPOs’ and NPOs’ access to the case study university. The interlocking of usually separate processes reflects this hybridity. For students, this means the coupling of a contract with the enrollment procedure. In the case of FPOs and NPOs, it entails coupling a formal approval procedure and coordinating study places in two institutional locations (business premises and a campus).

204

5

Results

Fig. 5.7 Illustration of the student life cycle of CSPs Application and enrolment

Course of studies (six semesters)

Award with academic degree

Completion of studies (final exams)

Note. Author’s representation based on document analysis.

To access CSPs as a student means to apply for a position (and study place associated with this) at a FPO or NPO in an upstream step and close a specific study and training contract for a CSP with them. Subsequently, students enroll at an MCU campus with proof of university entrance requirements and the contract as a precondition. This part of the process directly refers to a specific course of study and/or field of study at the campus of the MCU. The network of relations associated with this process step reveal: initially, FPOs and NPOs (e.g., represented by an HR manager) and students are in direct exchange, which leads to the closing of a contract. Then the student and the university (program coordinator and university administration) are in direct interaction, which leads to enrolment in a course of study and/or field of study of a CSP on a campus of the MCU. Concurrently, the FPOs and NPOs and the university are in direct exchange to coordinate the study place capacities (i.e., to check and reserve a certain number of study places) on the level of a course of study and/or a field of study. One may conclude that a specific study and training contract regulates the working relation between the FPO or NPO, and the student. The study and training contract regulates the period of training (duration of the study program),

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

205

the place for the practical phases of the CSP, the obligations of the contracting parties, the remuneration (and other benefits) during the course of study, the termination details and other arrangements. The standardized contract was negotiated and agreed upon among the stakeholders of the case study university. As the university is in charge of CSPs, it provides the contract templates. Remarkably, the contract was drawn up in a collaborative process under the leadership of the MCU. On the side of the FPOs and NPOs, the employers’ associations were involved in designing the contract. On the part of the government, the responsible division of the science ministry accompanied the process. The FPOs’ and NPOs’ access to the university requires that the case study university provides a directive to regulate the access procedure. The “Guidelines for Suitability and the Approval Procedure for FPOs and NPOs” define what is understood as a training facility on the side of FPOs and NPOs. Further, the suitability of a FPO or NPO for a CSP is audited based on several examination criteria. They include following valid study plans, appropriate remuneration (and the standards it is based on), provision of a supervisor on the side of the FPO or NPO with an appropriate academic background, the guarantee of freedom for scientific work (e.g., project thesis, bachelor thesis) and participation in the teaching and committee work of the university as well as participation in the evaluation procedure. A program coordinator from the study program concerned carries out the procedure. The FPOs and NPOs have to decide on which or how many of the campuses of the multi-campus university they are conducting a study program in one or more courses of study and/or fields of study. The process takes place at the campus level of the MCU. Consequently, they have to decide with which campus (in the sense of location or subsidiary) to establish a cooperation. This may involve several program coordinators. It is also possible that FPOs and NPOs train their students at several campuses of the MCU (depending on the size of the FPO or NPO). The audit results are recorded in a form by the program coordinator and submitted to the respective campus university council as an application for admission. Eventually, the respective campus university council decides on the admission of FPOs and NPOs as training partners of the case study university.

5.2.1.2 Process Phase: Course of Studies The phase of course of studies (over six semesters) is structured by study and examination regulations that exist for each department of the case study university. The study and examination regulations constitute a legal and administrative

206

5

Results

framework for the implementation and operation of CSPs and provide an important tool for program coordinators, professors with teaching duties, part-time lecturers, and representatives of FPOs and NPOs. Other planning instruments for study progress at the program level are listed in the following: A study progress plan operationalizes the time sequences for each semester throughout a bachelor program. It includes, in particular, the dates of the theoretical and practical phases as well as deadlines and dates for student research projects and examinations. The plan is drawn up for each academic year (two semesters). The responsible program coordinator carries out the planning and refers to the assigned course of study and/or field of study and the associated student cohort. In addition, the study progress plan has to be approved by the respective campus university council. A lecture plan is tailored to the requirements of a course of study and/or a field of study. A program coordinator draws up the plans, and the procedure takes requirements of a course of study and/or a field of study into account. This also means that the needs of FPOs and NPOs can be met. Two things make customization possible: first, the organization of studies in small groups (30 students) allows, for example, a relatively homogeneous composition of the group with students stemming from FPOs and NPOs in one industry or sector. Second, the structure of the study program, consisting of core modules and profile modules (specialization), provides the opportunity to take specific (demanded) qualifications by the FPO or NPO representatives into account. This takes place within a particular framework in the overall context of the accredited study programs. This is also reflected in the teaching assignments and their composition. The program coordinator has the freedom to hire certain part-time lecturers for certain topics to teach students and therefore shape a curriculum in practice. And this, in turn, is reflected in the already indicated lecture plan. Hence, each program coordinator composes an individual lecture plan for his or her assigned group of students and the interlinked course of study and/or field of study.

5.2.1.3 Process Phase: Completion of Studies For the completion of studies phase and the associated audits and examinations, an internal document is essential: the list of examination boards contains the members of an examination board on the level of a CSP and refers to a course of study and/or a field of study. The list of examination boards is created and maintained by the program coordinator or a group of program coordinators and has to be officially recognized by the responsible campus university council. The

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

207

members appointed to such an examination board are representatives of FPOs and NPOs, part-time lecturers, and professors from the case study university. Consequently, a program coordinator has an instrument to have stakeholders participate in the auditing/examination system of CSPs.

5.2.1.4 Process Phase: Award of Academic Degree The phase award of academic degree entails that three types of degrees at the bachelor level can be obtained after completing a CSP: Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Engineering, and Bachelor of Science. Each degree type at the undergraduate level has been credited with 210 ECTS points. Finally, it is remarkable that the designation of course of study and/or field of study (specialization) is part of the completion certificate. One may conclude that this outline of the specialization constitutes a significant feature of CSPs.

5.2.2

Insights into the Process Organization at the Institutional Level

The life cycle of CSPs is assigned to the strategic level and depicts characteristic elements for each of the four phases. Further, the life cycle of CSPs is shaped from the institutional perspective and the university as an academic institution (meso level). Figure 5.8 visualizes the four significant phases of the CSP life cycle (see Figure 5.8). In the following, each phase of the life cycle of CSPs is presented and described individually.

5.2.2.1 Process Phase: Implementation of a Course of Study When a CSP course of study is implemented, up to three documents record its essential features. This applies to each course of study and/or field of study (specialization) and is an obligatory requirement for their implementation. Proposals for CSP curricula stem from program coordinators and are coauthored by associated FPO and NPO representatives. Consultation and networking for this “subprocess” take place in several subcommissions of a respective expert commission (committee). Thus, this type of document reflects amendments to existing curricula and ideas for new curricula. In addition, they are evaluated and formally adopted in an internal accreditation or approval process by university committees. All operations are carried out within the framework of an institutional system accreditation. The Central Evaluation and Accreditation Agency (ZEvA) provides the framework for the system accreditation procedure.

208

5

Results

Fig. 5.8 Illustration of the life cycle of CSPs implementation of a course of study

regular operation of a course of study

re-accreditation of a course of study

termination of a course of study

Note. Author’s representation based on document analysis.

The case study university has received the seal of the Accreditation Council (Akkreditierungsrat). The seal enables the MCU studied here to innovate and further develop study programs (course of study/field of study) independently. The award of the seal is linked to a firmly established quality management system and is granted for a certain period. Three types of documents are important for implementing CSPs: First, the description of a course of study and/or field of study (specialization) contains both a short and extensive description of a course of study and/or a field of study (specialization). It includes a full market analysis on the need of the study program and incorporates letters of intent by prospective FPOs and NPOs. Further, it elaborates in much detail on graduate profiles and competence orientation of the CSP. Particular emphasis should be placed on the underlying competence model of CSPs, as it likely constitutes an operationalization of employability. The MCU studied here developed this competence model, which applies to every CSP offered. Before the implementation of any study program, it undergoes

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

209

competence-oriented considerations resulting in a competence-oriented design of each module and thus in a competence-oriented design of the curricula. The competence model refers to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the Qualifications Framework for German Higher Education Qualifications. The competence model of the case study university builds on five competences: professional competence, personal competence, methodological competence, social skills, and overarching action competence. Notably, the competences are differentiated according to the learning venues, i.e., the academic teaching phase at the university and the practical phase at the business premises of a FPO or NPO. In addition, the competence model is given special consideration in the curricula through a special module area called key qualifications. This makes it possible for the responsible program coordinator to train student’s competences according to the needs of FPOs and NPOs. Second, the “Module Manual of a Course of Study and/or Field of Study (specialization)” incorporates descriptions of each module which refer to a course of study and/or a field of study (specialization) and depend on the subject area. The module description contains the name of the module or the name of the subject to be taught, formal information, placement within the course of study, information on forms of teaching and examination, workload and ECTS credits, teaching units and teaching content, as well as information on required reading. Further, the qualification goals and competences of the module are described in detail. The module manual for a single module is authored by a program coordinator and the teaching professors responsible for a single module. The program coordinators coordinate the tasks on and around module manuals in the subcommittees of the expert commissions. Representatives of the FPOs and NPOs also take part in that process as co-authors and feedback providers since their obtained university membership allows them to participate in the work of the subcommittees. Third, the framework plan of a course of study and/or field of study (specialization) contains all relevant modules of a CSP and the associated arrangement of ECTS credits. The single components of a framework plan include the module name, the number of ECTS credits, the lectures to be taught, and the students’ attendance time. Thus, one may conclude that a “framework plan” provides an overview of a study program’s course for a program coordinator and HR managers (of FPOs and NPOs). Our research has shown that all of the case study university’s study programs are designed as intensive courses of study. Over a study period of three years, students acquire 210 ECTS credits (70 ECTS credits per academic year). In addition, practice phases are also awarded ECTS credits (in total, about 50–60 ECTS

210

5

Results

credits, depending on the subject area). One may conclude that granting ECTS credits for practice phases constitutes a special feature of the studied MCU. This means that the practical phases are an essential part of the CSPs and are equivalent to the academic part of the studies. Further, the practical phases of CSPs are clearly regulated, which represents a high effort for the FPO s and NPOs. One may also conclude that the three types of documents constitute a strategic planning framework for program coordinators and FPO and NPO representatives for conducting CSPs.

5.2.2.2 Process Phase: Regular Operation of a Course of Study The regular operation of a course of study (CSPs) refers to the temporal dimension of the organization of a degree course. The majority of CSPs at the case study university are held at the bachelor level and thus adhere to the type of practice-integrated model of CSPs. The term “practice-integrated” refers to the interconnected structural and temporal organization of the study programs, which results in a regular alternation over six semesters between teaching phases at a campus and practice phases at the premises of a profit or non-profit organization. A semester is divided into two parts and results in a three-month rhythm. In total, one and a half years each is spent on university teaching and learning and supervision in practice. The process and implementation of the courses of study and/or fields of study (specialization) are linked to the responsibility of the respective program coordinator. He or she is responsible for the core processes of CSPs, namely shaping the curriculum, conducting the teaching, and organizing the examinations. The range of tasks includes developing course offers, shaping examination procedures, organizing studies and selecting FPOs and NPOs, and selecting and hiring part-time lecturers. Therefore, we identified the program coordinator as having a vital function for CSPs. Our data have already shown that practice phases are an integral part of CSP curricula. They count as modules, including learning goals and competence goals, and receive a certain amount of ECTS credits. Hence, the module manuals of a course of study and/or field of study (specialization) include these practical phases. The practice modules provide a framework plan for writing up an individual training schedule for each FPO or NPO and its students, which are, in turn, oriented towards the contents of the module manual. Therefore, the process is carried out and supervised by a program coordinator. An academically qualified specialist ensures the supervision of students on the part of the FPOs and NPOs. The person is available to students as a practical supervisor and coach for holding regular feedback meetings concerning the students’ professional and

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

211

personal development. In addition, students write a reflection report at the end of each practical phase, where they report on their progress to the responsible program coordinator and their employer. One may conclude that practical phases are firmly integrated, structured, and interlinked with the university through the program coordinator. Further, as practical supervisors or HR managers, FPO and NPO representatives uphold the CSP relation to the program coordinator. One can say that the practical phases are to a certain extent institutionalized and follow clearly defined quality standards. Their main responsibility lies with the FPOs and NPOs. However, by anchoring them in the curriculum (and awarding ECTS credits), the university also influences practice phases through a program coordinator. All these principles and instruments are reflected in a manual on how to conduct successful practice phases of CSPs, which is provided by the university. The “Manual of Teaching in CSPs” records the most important issues on teaching in CSP degree courses, their characteristics, and resulting requirements for lecturers. Remarkably, the manual emphasizes the concept of competenceoriented teaching. It serves further as a guide for part-time lecturers and as a quality assurance tool for program coordinators when delegating teaching assignments. Finally, the quality management system of the case study university should also be mentioned in brief. Our data have shown that the evaluation of the received quality of CSPs has a high value for the operation and further development of the study programs. The quality management system references the Higher Education Act and is intended to apply to all types of universities. In the case of the studied MCU, it has a specific role, as the study programs are subject to constant changes influenced by the labor market. Hence, the various surveys, statistics, and evaluations are used as a continuous improvement process. In this context, four areas of evaluation can be distinguished: self-evaluation, external evaluation, statistics, and surveys by the state statistical office. We limited ourselves to the area of self-evaluation, as this falls within the competence of the program coordinator. Self-evaluation entails the following elements: evaluation of courses and/or fields of study, evaluation of lectures within a course and/or field of study, and a graduation survey on a course and/or field of study. The results feed into the university’s work at the micro level (study programs) and meso level (campus and university). One may conclude that the evaluation of lectures within a course and/or field of study (specialization) is a critical tool for program coordinators, while the others are of great importance for university management as well as program coordinators.

212

5

Results

5.2.2.3 Process Phase: Re-accreditation of a Course of Study The reaccreditation of a course of study (CSPs) refers to the process of internal accreditation. For reaccreditation, an existing course and/or field of study must undergo an internal auditing process after a specified time to amend or update existing curricula. The accreditation also refers to establishing a new course and/or field of study for the portfolio of CSP degree courses. Both processes are laid down in a DHBW statute that also states that there is an obligation to complete the internal accreditation process before students are admitted into CSPs. The process incorporates a consultation phase, a test or examination phase, and a decision-making phase. The consultation phase entails the setup of a consultation commission whose composition represents a cross-section of key CSP stakeholders (FPO and NPO representatives, students, alumni, part-time lecturers, professors with teaching duties, program coordinators, chairperson of the subcommission, an external reviewer from the scientific community and a representative of the expert commission). During a consultation workshop, stakeholders conduct a critical discussion and carve out further development options for the CSP under examination. This part of the procedure is accompanied by a range of documents such as a degree course description delivering input information to the commission and a consultation report providing records of the workshop outcomes. A chairperson of a subcommission writes the report. Further, the opinion of an external expert has to be obtained. Both documents contain recommendations for further development, proposals for course conditions and are transmitted to the relevant expert commission. An examination by external experts during the examination phase serves as the basis for these documents. The examination procedure is conducted based on previously defined criteria, including formal and content-related structural features, admission criteria, the demand for graduates, occupational opportunities, qualification goals, and the acquisition of competencies. During the decision-making phase, the relevant expert commission discusses the results of the consultation and examination phase. This is comparable to the reading of a bill in parliament. The discussion results lead to a “Decision Recommendation on the Establishment or Re-accreditation of a CSP.” Eventually, the recommendation for a decision is addressed to the university senate via the presidium to result in a formal decision. The Ministry of Science and the supervisory board must give their approval when a new course of study (of a CSP) is established. However, when a new field of study is set, there is no need for consent from the Ministry of Science and the supervisory board.

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

213

One may conclude that the process analysis has shown that all relevant stakeholders are involved. The process design can also be described as a kind of peer review procedure that aims to achieve a mutually accepted position on norms and academic standards and a balance of interest concerning CSPs.

5.2.2.4 Process Phase: Termination of a Course of Study Our data have shown that the termination of a course of study (CSP) is complex and lies in the competence of the committees of the studied MCU. Our considerations start at the level of a course and/or field of study and the capacity of study places associated with it. The program coordinator is in charge of maintaining the CSP in collaboration with the associated FPOs and NPOs. Due to the economic development, FPOs and NPOs may experience a decreasing demand for a certain range of study programs, resulting in a decline in reserved study places. This may lead to poor capacity utilization at the DHBW and offers an opportunity for change. The program coordinator has a reporting obligation on the results of their operations towards university management which may promote the need for change. Further, the decline in demand for a certain study program may result in permanently poor occupancy rates, which might negatively impact the funding of the case study university. Consequently, the program coordinator will strive to adapt the range of courses offered to revive demand from FPOs and NPOs. For example, the program coordinator may include current topics in the curricula and involve FPO and NPO representatives as providers of valuable feedback. Thus, attractive and current curricula may encourage FPOs and NPOs to send students to those degree courses. Therefore, program coordinators may have a strong interest in delivering curricula with current and attractive topics to achieve high occupancy rates. The response is rooted in the fact that program coordinators are authors of curricula and that the curricula of CSPs are primarily organized in modules. This may result in a response using three steps of amendment opportunities within the curriculum. Taking these opportunities for amendment can also be interpreted as innovation of study programs, understood as the economist Schumpeter (2017) defined it, in fact, as a new combination of production factors and its enforcement into economic implementation. Transferred to the case of CSPs, the result is a recombination of modules and their implementation in a new study offer or the replacement of an existing study offer. The first step lies in an amendment or new development of profile modules within an existing degree course and constitutes the step of “slight innovation.” The second step refers to a modification or further development of a field of study within an existing degree course and indicates “significant innovation.” Finally, a

214

5

Results

third step incorporates an amendment or new development of a whole course of study and the associated field of study, resulting in “high innovation.” The first step can be realized quite easily by the program coordinator according to campus management and the associated FPO and NPO representatives. The second and third steps have to undergo an authorization procedure within the committees of the case study university. One may conclude that the structures and processes of the case study university are designed to stimulate the depicted innovation mechanism, which leads to a continuous renewal of the courses and/or the fields of study in the areas of content and usage of capacities. If the case occurs that the mechanism no longer works, the case study university has the option of reallocating study place capacities according to demand (referring to FPOs’ and NPOs’ need for study places). This process is usually accompanied by university management and committees. However, this process is not in the interest of the program coordinator who bears responsibility for his or her existing course of study or field of study of a CSP; and he or she has an interest in retaining the capacities assigned to him or her, including responsibility. If there is no longer any demand for a course and/or field of study, the university launches a termination procedure. This decision is very complex and involves a whole range of aspects to be taken into account. The element of capacity is always linked to university funding and, consequently, poses an important question for the studied MCU. Another point is the content (technical) specification of a CSP that is associated with prestige and profile building for individual campuses of the MCU. Finally, another important aspect lies in higher education policy. Participants of the present study mentioned CSPs in the context of qualification and economic promotion. Consequently, terminating a CSP would be a decision of the university and the science ministry, as it has to give its approval according to higher education law.

5.2.3

Negotiation and Decision-Making on CSPs

The process of negotiation and decision-making is understood in an economic sense reflected in an “input–output relation.” The dimension of input refers to decision proposals and the dialogue and exchange relations taking place around them. An output dimension reflects formal decision-making resulting, e.g., in a resolution on a proposal or a vote on personnel matters. The process incorporates two subprocesses: first, upstream negotiation and, second, the decision-making afterward, which refers to all matters concerning CSPs. To put

5.2 Process Organization of Cooperative Study Programs

215

it more precisely, all matters relating to CSPs primarily involve negotiation and decision-making on academic norms and standards for these type of study programs and their mutual recognition and acceptance among stakeholders, resulting in resolutions on statutes, directives, recommendations for action, and handouts. Further, the decision-making on CSPs includes submitting statements and decisions on important personnel issues, decision-making on framework curricula and module manuals which are used by the program coordinators to conduct their CSPs. All this is gathered in official documents which record the subjects of such a decision. First, the subprocess of “negotiation” incorporates a preliminary consultation phase that addresses all relevant stakeholders’ perspectives and results in a decision proposal. It also means that an object such as a curriculum proposal takes into account many perspectives and thereby achieves a certain level of maturity at the end of the consultation phase. One may conclude that the consultation phase constitutes a specific type of peer review procedure. All relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to examine a matter concerning a CSP from their individual perspectives and to introduce their (individual) professional perspectives. From this angle, a proposal for a new curriculum, for example, undergoes an internal peer review process before a final decision is made. Second, the subsequent undertaking of decision-making represents the final decision to be made and brings in the legally binding context of the case study university. Hence, decision-making is a legal obligation that shapes binding documents such as statutes, directives, or guidelines; or, in the case of a personnel decision, a formal election and an official appointment, which also appear in official documents of the studied university. Therefore, formal decision-making and liability of decisions have an origin in the Higher Education Act. The university has been granted autonomy by the government through the Higher Education Act and can make decisions within its statutory law and regulate its affairs largely independently. Accordingly, decision-making on strategic matters of the studied MCU is assigned to the committees and thus refers to the institutional level (meso level). Here, professors and FPO and NPO representatives have roughly the same decision-making weight measured by the number of votes. Furthermore, the ministry reserves a critical position (chair of the supervisory board and right of approval in certain fundamental university matters) and can thus directly influence decisions. On the other hand, the group of students has a comparatively low number of votes and therefore has little influence on decisions.

216

5

Results

Finally, decision-making on operational matters is assigned to stakeholders in a joint decision-making process tailored to the day-to-day operations at the microlevel. Therein, two stakeholder groups are salient: first, the program coordinators and the associated university management (professors elected to the office) drive day-to-day business in a leading position. Second, HR managers and/or training officers (representatives of FPOs and NPOs) drive daily business in a downstream position linked to the university. Interim conclusion Our presented insights on the processes that concern CSPs reveal that those undergo a high degree of standardization and regulation at both the micro and meso levels. This finding is replicated in a plethora of documents that recorded standardization as well as regulatory issues. Therefore, one may conclude CSPs have reached a high level of maturity and seem to be well established. At the micro level, the program coordinator carries out day-to-day operations in a joint coordination process with HR managers from FPOs and NPOs. The high degree of standardization and regulation results in a wide variety of planning and administrative tasks assigned to them. The campus committees are involved in certain planning documents and must give their approval. This applies to the admission of students and FPOs and NPOs, the binding planning of study times, and the composition of the examination committees. Furthermore, there are considerable degrees of freedom in the implementation of CSPs. For example, by drawing up the lecture plan and awarding teaching assignments, the program coordinator can design a course and/or field of study in response to the needs of students and FPOs and NPOs. At the meso level, four process streams were examined, beginning with the launch of a CSP whose concept and objectives must be set out in detail in documents and the associated procedure. Further, CSPs are system accredited in the case under investigation. We found that CSPs have a competence-oriented curriculum design and that the practical phases yield ECTS credits. Second, the CSPs in our study are of the practice-integrated type, which distinguishes between the practical phase and the academic teaching phase. The practical phases are an integral part of the module manuals and thus institutionalized and bound to quality standards. Further, the implementation of the CSPs is linked to the personal responsibility of a program coordinator. Third, the CSPs are subject to an internal peer review process in the event of a new establishment or a revision. Internal and external stakeholder perspectives are included in this process, which results in a decision paper on the study programs under consideration. This work takes place in the context of the committees allowing

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

217

for a division of labor: the expert commissions and the associated subcommissions are devised to prepare the decision paper and the senate and the supervisory board of the university then formally decide on it. Fourth, the CSPs’ organization in modules offers program coordinators the opportunity to make amendments and create new curricula proposals in three innovation intensities in a clear, defined procedure. Accordingly, the CSPs are under a permanent process of evaluation and renewal. Finally, the negotiation and decision-making process on academic norms and standards for CSPs was examined. One may conclude that the distribution of tasks divided between preparing the decision and making the decision. The preparation of decision papers (proposal) in the decision-making process (vote, approval) reflected this. The division of tasks can also be observed in the committee context.

5.3

Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance in the Case of Cooperative Study Programs

Within the previous sections, we introduced structures, stakeholders’ characteristics, and their underlying tasks and processes in more detail to demonstrate the scope of action within the case study university. We have already established that the university under study has its specific structures and own process characteristics. This leads to the emergence of different dynamics that we unravel in the following sections of our empirical chapter. These relate to all matters of CSPs and therefore constitute the source of “dynamics.” We refer to a central finding of the previous sections: the interplay of stakeholders’ roles, structures, and processes shapes a specific governance profile of CSPs and introduces a range of influence opportunities for each stakeholder group. This leads to different dynamics that take place at the micro level (referring to the implementation level of CSPs) and at the meso level (referring to the institutional level of the case study university). Consequently, the following subsections discuss the roles and influences of professors, students, FPOs and NPOs, and policy representatives. Accordingly, this section illustrates the identified roles and resulting influence repertoire associated with them. Eventually, a comprehensive view of stakeholder interplay and its characteristic dynamics concludes the section.

218

5.3.1

5

Results

Perceived Third Mission Governance Practices of Professors

This subsection presents the professors’ insights and perceptions of third mission governance in the case of CSPs. First, we refer to professors in the position of program coordinators who work at the program level of the case study university. The program coordinator’s day-to-day operations incorporate the already identified roles of intermediary, conductor of degree courses, and guardian of academic quality. Further, a program coordinator also performs at the meso level of the university in the context of subcommittees which are tethered to an expert commission. One can also say that program coordinators network across campuses in those subcommittees. We remember that the subcommittee work incorporates the creation and further development of CSP curricula. The particular field of tasks encompasses the already identified roles of editor/author of curricula and steward of the assigned course and/or field of study. Second, professors can assume an office (or function) in the context of university management (institutional level) of the case study university. The level in questions is situated at the campus school, campus level, and general organizational level (presidium) of the studied multi-campus university. The professors in university management constitute one common unit of investigation and fulfill the already identified roles for capacity control, rapporteur, and representative/facilitator.

5.3.1.1 Perception of Program Coordinators at the Program Level First, we consider the micro level and introduce how professors as program coordinators perceive their daily work. The work takes place within the habitat of an assigned course and/or field of study, which is, in turn, embedded in the environment of a campus school at a campus. We have already depicted the function of a program coordinator to be crucial for the day-to-day operations of CSPs. The respondents from the ranks of program coordinators as well as university management stated that a program coordinator constitutes a key role for forming an interface between all relevant stakeholder groups (students, FPO and NPO representatives, part-time lecturers, other professors) of CSPs. It is characterized by maintaining daily contact with students, part-time lecturers, and FPO and NPO representatives. The following quote from an interviewed program coordinator illustrates the facets of the function:

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

219

From my point of view, the existence of program coordinators is the central core and the guarantor for the existence of a dual study concept. Otherwise, we have a university of applied sciences with a practice office in which an administrative employee or someone else organizes practical work, and we no longer have the interlocking of theory and practice if we do not have a program coordinator. So, for me, giving up this function would actually mean giving up the structure of dual studies and NOT because of better or worse pay. For me, this is not a problem of hierarchy but rather a problem of control or a question of the identity of this dual study organization and dual study. From the point of view of the dual partners, that is my experience and that of many colleagues, the whole thing thrives on the fact that there are identifiable, interesting, and accepted contact persons who are also desired in terms of personnel. (Interview#04)

The intermediary role of the program coordinator entails a huge workload when implementing CSPs The respondents from the ranks of program coordinators and groups of other interviewees explained that permanent contact is cultivated through annual or biannual conferences. Thus, permanent dialogue (within the cooperation) is promoted. It is foremost geared in the direction of FPOs and NPOs but with the addition that contact maintenance also takes place in the direction of students, part-time lecturers, and other professors. The role of an intermediary can therefore be ascribed here. In addition, an interviewee (program coordinator) made a comparison in the direction of a chair holder at a university: the job of a program coordinator—compared to the chair holder—is characterized by a lot of administrative work. The administrative work refers to issues of conducting degree courses in terms of organization, content, and didactics. Consequently, the work results, for example, in creating and reconciling training plans for each student of the assigned student group with the cooperating FPO or NPO based on an official recognized curriculum, which reflects the role as a conductor of study programs and/or fields of study. Program coordinators show a solid commitment to CSPs All interviewed professors (interviewees represent a cross-section of all academic disciplines of the DHBW) highlighted to a considerable extent that they share a firm commitment to the study model of CSPs as it manifests at the DHBW (which is the practice-integrated model of CSPs). The considerable extent of a firm commitment with the model of CSPs could be seen by the fact that, following the dual principle, CSPs are developed highly flexible for the FPOs and NPOs as partners and members of the university. It is striking that this perception seems to apply to all academic disciplines of the case-study university.

220

5

Results

Program coordinators attribute to themselves a strong influence on the implementation and maintenance of CSPs In addition, the interviewed professors attributed a very influential role to themselves, especially on the content level. Even if, according to their own statements, they felt enclosed in a “corset” of frameworks, rules, and regulations, they still saw a high degree of freedom in the design of academic teaching. In principle, all university campuses are subject to the same framework curriculum, rules, and guidelines. However, the dominant perception was that the implementation of CSPs was highly dependent on the local professors (represented foremost by program coordinators) as individuals and their ability to maintain the local stakeholder network. The profile and the personality of the professor shapes the quality of CSPs Further, respondents highlighted that new professors had to gain an understanding of the core and essence of CSPs. Ideally, a program coordinator combines the following elements in their competence profile: professional experience, teaching experience, and scientific experience. Thus, it was concluded that considerable differences in performance and the quality of CSPs could be made. It is ultimately the program coordinators who determine what is taught based on the highly standardized curricula. The coordinators interviewed perceive their campus school as the center of content work and as a place for the coordination of CSPs. High demand (from FPOs and NPOs) and scarce study place capacities (university) characterize CSP’s daily business At this point, it should be noted that the impressions described by respondents took place against the background of ongoing oversupply in student numbers (too many students), which is reflected in a demand surplus on the side of FPOs and NPOs. This results in a greater demand for study places at the university. But with the addition that the university has a limited number of study places at its disposal (long-term contract with the government on university funding secures a limited capacity of study places). Some respondents described this situation as a dilemma concerning the creation and introduction of new degree courses. Limited time for academic teaching (half a term) characterize CSPs As stated above, CSPs adhere to the dual principle and are carried out in a practiceintegrated model. This results in the fact that time for academic teaching is limited in that model: over the three years the CSP takes (bachelor), a year and a half of the time is dedicated to practice phases. Hence, a year and a half remain for academic teaching, which is half of what a regular bachelor program offers. The content relation is coordinated between the program coordinator (university) and

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

221

an HR manager (FPO or NPO), which results in close links between the university and business practice. On the one hand, respondents regard this as a strength, but on the other hand, this constitutes a disadvantage of having limited time for academic teaching. Different objectives in teaching occur in the academic disciplines of CSPs The differences across academic disciplines emerge in outlines of the respondents’ (program coordinators) presentations. Professors from the engineering department stated that they focus their teaching on the provision of basic technical knowledge. From their particular perspectives, the teaching of basic theory meets the “nature of a university,” which applies especially to the field of engineering. This is reflected in the high number of courses of study within the Department of Engineering. In the Department of Business, the teaching of basic knowledge in business administration and particular knowledge of an industry (or sector of an industry) is deemed important. This is exemplified in the numerous fields of study within the course of study of business administration. Frontal teaching in small student groups is the preferred teaching method of CSPs The majority of the respondents (program coordinators) from the areas of engineering and business favored the concept of frontal teaching in small groups with 30 students, which also constitutes an administrative planning unit for the organization of CSPs. Accordingly, the respondents underlined frontal teaching in small groups as an appropriate format for teaching basic knowledge. In addition, data confirm that frontal teaching in small groups with 30 students each constitutes a didactic prototype of the university. The strategic objective in both academic disciplines (engineering and business) is to deliver needs-based junior staff to regional labor markets. Within the Department of Social Work and the Department of Health Sciences, teaching adheres to regulations of the professions resulting in a relatively low number of courses of study (compared to business and engineering). The strategic objective in both academic disciplines is to secure high-quality care. The problem of recruiting part-time lecturers in sufficient quantity and quality for CSPs The respondents from the ranks of program coordinators stated that about 60 percent of teaching is covered by external, hired lecturers (or part-time lecturers) who receive their teaching assignments from program coordinators. Further, interviewees stated that it posed a challenge to recruit part-time lecturers in an appropriate quantity and qualification for teaching modules. Particularly finding part-time lecturers in

222

5

Results

accordance with competence-oriented teaching are hard to come by. The concept of competence-oriented teaching requires finding an appropriate balance between teaching goal-oriented content and the academic substance of the content. Thus, each program coordinator maintains a network of part-time lecturers to ensure an appropriate level of teaching quality. The interviewees added that cooperating FPOs and NPOs were expected to make lecturers out of their area available for teaching. However, this can only be realized to a limited extent due to the numerous operational obligations of the contact persons in the FPOs and NPOs. The problem of implementing practice phases according to academic standards in CSPs Further, most of the interviewees from the ranks or program coordinators emphasized the challenge of providing and ensuring compliance with academic requirements during a practical phase. The practical phases of CSPs are defined in modules and are awarded ECTS credits. This requires a certain academic level as a prerequisite for the award of the same. The respondents highlighted that it was their job to ensure that students met predefined learning objectives during the practice phases. But with the addition that practice phases lie in the jurisdiction of partner FPOs and NPOs. The challenge of balancing academic freedom and work requirements in CSPs The part of co-designer or co-conductor played by partner FPOs and NPOs was not always viewed positively. The role was seen critically by some of the respondents from the ranks of program coordinators because it undermines the imperative of neutrality in science. The issue of providing time and freedom for students to work on their science-oriented work (project thesis, bachelor thesis) exemplified this. Another example was the demand voiced by students and FPOs and NPOs to include topical issues from the industry into the curriculum. Within this narrative, we assign program coordinators the role of guardians of academic quality. In addition, we found a clear separation between the two phases (academic teaching and practice) and their underlying responsibilities. The academic teaching phase was clearly seen as the professors’, while the practice phase was regarded as the FPOs’ and NPOs’ subject of decision-making. Hence, we argue that this constitutes two core areas for each institutional sector (university and FPO or NPO). The problem of topicality and relevance of teaching content in CSP’s The respondents characterized students as very demanding concerning experienced academic teaching. Students put considerable importance on issues with (in their view) practical relevance, which also affects the design of instruction. In addition,

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

223

the program coordinators highlighted that students played an influential role in the evaluation process. In addition, respondents described the students’ personal and professional development as very different from other types of universities. They substantiated this claim by referring to the alternation between two learning venues. The program coordinators underlined that students saw themselves more as employees in the organization they worked for. The problem of too little freedom for research by professors in CSPs To gather a certain extent of freedom, program coordinators apply different organizational models to the conduction of CSPs (as a response strategy). Salient models emerging from interview data were as follows: First, a program coordinator assumes responsibility for a whole cohort of students consisting of a group of 30 students for each academic year—the first, second, and third. The cohort of 90 students is assigned to a specific course and/or field of study. Respondents termed this organization model “pillar model,” in which a program coordinator takes care of all stakeholder-matters of an assigned course and/or field of study. The pillar model facilitates the intermediary role in that it presents one face to the customer. It enables to conduct a single course and/or field of study with an absorption capacity of 30 study places but with the addition that the entire administrative work depends on one person, the program coordinator. Thus, the professor has very limited space for other activities such as research. It is noteworthy that this model applies primarily to the Department of Business and the Department of Engineering and therefore constitutes a basic model of the DHBW. This is also reflected in the high number of courses of study and associated fields of study in both departments. Second, a group of program coordinators assumes responsibility for several cohorts of students. Again, each cohort incorporates 90 students, that is, 30 students from each academic year. Those cohort groups are assigned to a course of study and appropriate field of study. Program coordinators share tasks in the following order: one program coordinator takes care of issues for the first academic year, a second program coordinator takes care of issues for the second academic year, and a third program coordinator does this for the third academic year. Respondents depicted this organization model as organization according to academic years. Some program coordinators deemed this organizational model advantageous for delivering CSPs with high absorption capacities such as mechanical engineering or applied nursing science. Hence, professors share administrative tasks on a collegial level and gain free space to conduct other activities such as research. A third organizational model was detected as the primary model for the Department of Social Work. Interviewees described the model to be characterized by an

224

5

Results

equal dispersal of the workload required in the execution of modules between all professors within a course of study. One should consider that this model applies to courses of study with a high absorption capacity. The specific focus topics linked to specific fields of study are carried out in the course of study to a later point. The basic planning unit still is a group of 30 students and the resulting absorption capacity, but internal student groups are organized according to core modules and profile modules. Core modules refer to basic technical subjects where all student groups are put together for lectures. Profile modules refer to certain fields of study where student groups attend profile-specific lectures separately. One program coordinator compared this organizational approach to the one used in universities of applied sciences. Program coordinators assume responsibility for certain fields of study and appear as intermediaries and conductors in this context, only with the addition that professors of the respective campus school share all module responsibilities and tasks. For example, recruiting part-time lecturers is delegated to professors who assumed a module responsibility. Thus, the program coordinator is released from this task. Therefore, professors gain free space for conducting other activities such as research.

5.3.1.2 Perception of Program Coordinators at the Institutional Level The following subsection introduces the role of program coordinators at the university’s meso level. We relate to the finding that program coordinators shape an internal professional/technical network in subcommittees at the cross-campus level. The composition of subcommittees follows the structure of course and/or field of study. Within them, curricula of CSPs are created and undergo further development. Consequently, it incorporates the already mentioned roles of editor/author of curricula and steward of their assigned course of study and/or field of study. Joint curriculum development and coordination for CSPs (with FPOs and NPOs) under the leadership of the program coordinator The program coordinators also consult with representatives from FPOs and NPOs in their subcommittee work. Respondents (from the ranks of program coordinators) perceived themselves as professionals for the creation and further development of curricula and regarded this as their core task. Accordingly, the role of editor/author of curricula exemplifies this. The professional view of that role is also suggested in an interviewee’s description: program coordinators design modules, and by this enact professional, teaching, and scientific experience as three fruitful perspectives

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

225

encouraging quality. Third-party intervention (e.g., by FPO and NPO representatives) is, in this scenario, more than welcome. According to some respondents from the ranks of program coordinators, on the one hand, joint coordination with profit and non-profit representatives ensures valuable feedback. Yet, on the other hand, there is also the risk of profit and non-profit representatives making policy on their own terms. The interviews suggested that this option was occasionally the case, as the following citation illustrates: So, this is an incredibly complex subject, according to my perception. The classic image from the outside, even though I have contacts with younger people outside the DHBW, suggests very strongly that we are driven by companies. I have never perceived this in this way before. Especially not from the content side. From time to time, impulses, some of them quite small, come from company representative meetings that we hold once a year. But you can definitely not say that we are company-driven. (Interview#01)

The work of curriculum development and coordination of CSPs is characterized by multiple interests and, therefore, time-consuming and political The respondents (interviewees from the ranks of program coordinators) described the process of creating curricula proposals and gathering an officially approved decision as very time-consuming. This stems from the fact that the whole procedure is accompanied by many different (individual) interests and committees. Thus, one can depict the process to a significant extent as policy-driven. One of the interviewed program coordinators names the example that a subcommission and its composition of program coordinators depends on the size of a course and/or field of study and the number of campuses on which this is offered. For example, the subcommission for business information systems consists of around 60 professors from eight university campuses. Consequently, many (individual) interests are given, making joint coordination difficult when introducing new concepts. Therefore, the work of the subcommissions is also strongly influenced by the interests of the single campuses (in the sense of locations or subsidiaries) and their professors, determining their role as the steward of their assigned course and/or field of study. One interviewee in a university management position characterized the self-interest of a campus as follows: So, there is an observation. And that is that each campus does, of course, have a strong life of its own that it needs. And that we have to be careful, and this is not always seen in such a way that we compete with each other, but not in an unwelcome competition. However, I have always been a team worker. (Interview#05)

226

5

Results

The corporate side strongly influences the demand for the range of CSPs, and new CSP offers are enforced through committee work According to the interviewees, the demand for a range of study programs is strongly influenced by the corporate side (FPOs and NPOs), with large companies being much more involved in the committees than small and medium-sized enterprises. Respondents from the ranks of program coordinators mentioned that it took a high effort to participate in the committees, which tended to discourage companies. In addition, it also takes time to gain an understanding of the nature and manner of the courses and their underlying design principles. Moreover, respondents elucidated that the committees played an important role in the establishment of new courses and/or fields of study. In contrast, university management played a less important role in this context. A high degree of division of labor between subcommittees and expert commissions characterizes curriculum work, and content impulses for CSPs stem from the subcommittees Finally, interviewees from the ranks of program coordinators described a division of tasks between expert commissions and associated subcommissions. The subcommissions do professional/technical work, and the parent expert commission sets the framework for this. Respondents exemplified the tasks of expert commissions, containing, e.g., standardization issues, such as a uniform distribution of ECTS credits. This may result in guidelines that would be difficult to manage in the work of the subcommittees. Depending on the subject area, a different implementation of ECTS credits to the ones prescribed in a curriculum could be required. Furthermore, respondents highlighted that the actual content impulses for curricula were given in the subcommittees, and they perceived the consideration of many requirements and committee stages as an obstacle. An interviewee stated in terms of content work on the subcommittees and their function: And that, as it were, the curricula are created in joint coordination between these two parties, the university and the training partners, so that one is always up-to-date, and practically oriented. (Interview#10)

This also includes the speed of decision-making. The development of new courses of study (and/or fields of study associated with it) occurs within the existing system. After a successful practical test (as a precondition), an allocation of resources (e.g., additional capacities, budgets, personnel) follows.

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

227

5.3.1.3 Perception of Professors in University Management First of all, we recall that professors in a university management function carry out their offices at the meso level of the case study university. The corresponding roles and functions were capacity control, rapporteur, and representative/facilitator. Our research suggests that the exercise of roles can be distinguished between campus-level management and the general management of the entire multi-campus university. At the campus level, it is the task of the university management to represent the interests of the campus internally and externally (regional impact) and place them in the context of the university’s overall strategy. At the central level of the case study university, the management is concerned with bringing the various campus interests together, embed them in the university’s overall strategy, and represent the university at the federal state level. The views of professors holding university management functions at the campus level of the case study university The respondents at the campus level held the offices of head of campus and head of school. They represent perceptions and insights from two campuses of our studied case, one located in a metropolitan area (Stuttgart) and one in a rural area (Ravensburg). Respondents from this group stated that they have an obligation to report to the presidium and the ministry. This dealt mainly with the development of their campus and the utilization of study places. In addition, respondents described that their campus served the regional economy and contributed to the recruitment of young people. In the case of the Stuttgart campus, respondents stated that their assigned campus is located in a region with numerous other HEIs, which constitutes a challenge to attract attention from the sector of regional (higher education) policy and decisionmakers of the regional industry. Further, respondents perceived their tasks to lie primarily in supporting the (program coordinator) professors in developing and providing study programs, therefore shaping an individual campus profile. Consequently, one respondent stated that the offer of specialist conferences based on the campus profile could also be seen in this context. The respondent gave the example of the course of studies in Accounting, Taxation, and Business Law, which has established a highly recognized specialist conference on accounting in cooperation with other universities stemming from the local area. In the case of the Ravensburg campus, respondents described that CSPs enjoy the attention of regional politics. According to their descriptions, this could be seen, for example, in regular meetings with mayors, county commissioners, members of

228

5

Results

the state parliament, or in regular exchanges with chambers and associations of the regional economy. Furthermore, one interviewee outlined that many special courses of study at the campus attract specialists from other regions who would then stay in the region after graduating. The respondent stated that the assigned campus is one of three higher education institutions within the region and, judging from student numbers, the largest. In both cases, the respondents (professors in the university management at campus level) described that they manage an organization with staff and professors at the campus level and thus perceive themselves as university managers. Further, the interviewees shared the perception that the ministry intervenes in university processes in ways that sometimes feel too controlling. The respondents named the writing of university statutes and the issue of renting buildings for the campus as examples. Concerning the university statutes, an agreement must be reached with the responsible division in the Ministry of Science. When renting space for the case study university, the division in the Ministry of Science, as well as the Ministry of Finance and its building authority responsible for real estate, are involved. An agreement must be reached with these bodies on the leasing of the space for the case study university. In addition, one respondent (campus university management) characterized the cooperation with FPOs and NPOs happening at different hierarchical levels. At the levels of courses of study and fields of study, cooperation is said to be very intensive. At the campus level, cooperation is depicted as already clearly decreasing. At the central level of the university, hardly any cooperation could be observed in the expert commissions and the senate. Yet, on the supervisory board, an evident influence of FPOs and NPOs is noticeable again. Finally, respondents characterized their representative/facilitator role as predominantly listening to different interests, canalizing and transforming them into useful output in curriculum development and innovation of new curricula and questions of campus development and fit with university strategy. The views of professors holding university management functions at the central level of the case study university Representatives (university management) from the top level of the university provided perceptions and insights into the inner life of managing the multi-campus university. First, interviewees from this level stated that the university makes a regional contribution to Baden-Wuerttemberg’s economy and is a grown construct addressing specific demands. Further, the respondents highlighted that the landscape of higher education institutions is largely diversified in Baden-Wuerttemberg

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

229

(as well as in Germany). Consequently, one interviewee stated that the role of the presidium (of the case study university) is to ensure cooperation on the cross-campus level and maintain a permanent dialogue with the campus heads to shape a joint strategy. According to one of the interviewees, the task of bringing the campus and its interests together is particularly difficult. The following citation illustrates this through the lens of an interviewee: “And I have to say that it is, of course, difficult to do this with us, because there is so much dynamic and movement in it, there is also spatial dynamic and movement in it. A great effort, which I also have to make, is to bring the students and different campuses together.” (Interview #07) Complementary, the interviewee stated that the case study university had undergone a period of growth, which was depicted as very challenging because it has lead to a high workload, in particular in the context of a multi-campus university. Further, the interviewee emphasized that professors fulfill a special function for the case study university, in particular as program coordinators. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the unique requirements of the university type and its underlying mission when appointing professors to the university. Further, the interviewee elaborated that the cooperation with FPOs and NPOs in the university committees and, beyond that, with the employer associations function very well. They were good sparring partners to represent the interests of the university to politicians. In contrast to this, one respondent remarked they would like to see more participation from FPOs and NPOs in the expert commissions (place of negotiation on curricula for CSPs), where it is currently difficult to get people interested. Another interviewee from the ranks of top university management explained that the university is fully committed to training specialists and that this requires good professors who are willing to get involved with the CSP model. Accordingly, there is little time left for other activities such as research, which is also a very important task for professors. The interviewee depicted this as a challenge because good teaching also requires research in a certain way. All interviewees from the ranks of university management stated that the topic of research and its adaptation to the CSP context is one of the major challenges for the case study university. Further, the respondents characterized the ministry’s role as double-sided: on the one hand, the ministry is available to cover strategic needs for study places. Respondents referred to the example of the academization of the health care professions. On the other hand, the minister’s chairmanship of the supervisory board is seen critically in parts. One interviewee commented on that in a positive direction and outlined that it is advantageous because it gives the university a direct line to political decision-makers. On the other hand, another interviewee expressed criticism because it might endanger the university’s autonomy. The following citation

230

5

Results

underpins that notion: “But this dependence on the ministry is striking. The ministry is far too controlling in our procedures. Everything and anything is questioned by the ministry. We are still a long way from the kind of autonomy I would like to have for a university.” (Interview#21). Finally, one may conclude that the different roles (capacity controller, representative/facilitator, rapporteur) are reflected in the respondents’ descriptions. However, the roles are unevenly dispersed: the roles of representative/facilitator and rapporteur are more salient than the capacity controller role.

5.3.2

Perceived Practices of Students in Third Mission Governance

Students’ roles and influences are presented by respondents who are students simultaneously experiencing their respective CSP and are student representatives either at the campus or the general level of the organization. Notably, the group of respondents belongs to the academic disciplines of engineering and business. Accordingly, the professional perspective of the students represents the majority of the case study university (regarding study programs in operation). In the section on the role of students, we have already characterized the dual role of the students. One may conclude that at the level of a course and/or a field of study (micro level), students are more likely to be in a customer role due to their role as employees. Further, one may conclude that at the university level (meso level), in an official position of student representation, students are more likely to be in the role of facilitator and/or customer (depending on the specific context).

5.3.2.1 Perception of Students at the Program Level At the micro level, the interviewees’ descriptions suggest that students take on a customer role (refers to our interview sample of students). Accordingly, a high expectation for the quality of the experienced lectures, including a high degree of practical relevance, was mentioned. The self-perception of the customer role was defined by an interviewed student as follows: “Basically, students are the customers of the DHBW, and without students, there is basically no DHBW” (Interview#13). The student respondents further mentioned that their experiences of teaching quality varied. Noticeably, teaching and its quality largely depend on part-time lecturers. Moreover, it was reported that a case of poor teaching experience on the side of students is directly reported to the program coordinator and will find its way directly into the evaluation. According to the student respondents, it does not have any noticeable consequences. They also suggested an explanation for this is the

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

231

inadequate payment of part-time lecturers. Accordingly, the student respondents showed some understanding of the fact that the responsible program coordinator has hardly any alternatives for action. In addition, the student respondents perceive the program coordinator as an essential person for the operation of CSPs. A student interviewee put the importance of a program coordinator in the following words: “What I find interesting or sometimes even a bit frightening at the DHBW is that the perception of how good or bad the studies are for a student is extremely dependent on the program coordinator, i.e., the associated professor” (Interview #18). Student respondents stated that program coordinators appear as permanent contact persons for nearly all student concerns and that communication happens at eye level. Further, the student interviewees stated that teaching quality is discussed with program coordinators directly in person or in the context of quality circles. One of the student respondents mentioned that the program coordinator’s role is not that important, however, against the background of having experienced a different organizational model in their course and/or field of study (refers to organization according to academic years); accordingly, their contact persons kept changing. In addition, the role of customer is reflected in the fact that students deliberately decided on a study offer that promises connectivity within the higher education system (e.g., participation in a master’s program following the bachelor’s degree). CSPs provide a “practical pathway” within higher education. The student interviewees also stated that they had a permanent contact person in their FPO or NPO. Thus, academic teaching phases were evaluated with this person in terms of the teaching quality experienced. But with the addition that fixed supervision of students is a standard in large FPOs and NPOs. But it is not a standard and cannot be a rule in small and medium-sized FPOs and NPOs. Consequently, the customer role is reflected in all the descriptions of the students interviewed. The following citation illustrates these aspects: “For example, after each theory phase, we have a so-called return discussion where we talk with our instructor about the last theory phase, whether there were any problems, whether any lectures stood out positively or negatively for any reason, and so on. I think this is a very big point.” (Interview#18).

5.3.2.2 Perception of Student Representatives at the Institutional Level At the meso level, students appear, as already identified in the previous section, in the role of facilitator for university concerns and customer for the representation of their status group. Accordingly, student respondents mentioned two salient exemplifications for the assignment of these roles.

232

5

Results

In general, students hold seats via student representation in all relevant university committees. The student respondents perceived communication and participation at eye level, and student concerns find an open ear. However, the interviewed students ascribed the influence of their status group in top-level committees (supervisory board and senate at the central organizational level) as very low due to the minimal number of seats. The abovementioned students’ roles, consisting of facilitator and customer, are taken up and illustrated with an example each: First, student respondents described that there had been a change/amendment in the contents of the study and training contract on CSPs. The change consisted, among other things, of an additional clause stating that students should pay back their salary if they dropped out of their studies or did not remain with a company for a certain time after graduation. The respondents complained that they had probably not been sufficiently involved in the process of change/amendment of the study and training contract and that the decision had been taken at the highest level. According to the students’ accounts, they responded by using the campus committees to put the issue on the agenda. This was based on the fact that the student representation has a higher number of seats at the campus level and can therefore bring forward their concerns. Second, the student respondents reported that the student representation launched an initiative to improve the payment of part-time lecturers to attract better-qualified persons and enhance the quality of teaching. Both examples reflect the roles of facilitator and customer. Further, the fact that students stay only half of their study time at the campus makes committee work more difficult considering the student’s time budget. Finally, student respondents mentioned that FPOs and NPOs encourage the committee work of student representatives. They get, for example, time off during practice phases, but the benefits are limited because students are firmly planned into operational processes of their FPOs and NPOs.

5.3.3

Perceived Practices of FPOs and NPOs in Third Mission Governance

Concerning the roles and influence of FPOs and NPOs, we first refer to interactions between FPO and NPO representatives and university professors concerning the operation and the strategic development of CSPs. Those take place at both the micro and meso levels. At the micro level, we refer to the interactions between program coordinators and HR managers (as an example of a representative from FPOs and NPOs). This is where HR managers play the roles of gatekeeper,

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

233

co-conductor of degree courses, and customer. At the meso level, we refer to interactions in the context of committee work. This refers to appointed or elected profit and non-profit representatives in connection with their university membership. Here, FPO and NPO representatives play the roles of co-author of curricula, customer, and lobbyist.

5.3.3.1 Perception of FPO and NPO Representatives at the Program Level Concerning micro-level interactions, respondents (from the group of FPOs and NPOs) mentioned as one argument for their choice of university type and CSPs offered the early retention of junior staff at the FPO or NPO, both professionally and socially. Respondents attributed this line of argument foremost to small and medium-sized FPOs and NPOs to solve junior staff problems. On the other hand, respondents from large FPOs and NPOs argued that they have a wide range of educational opportunities and therefore have various choices to attract young talent, the case study university being one of them. Further, respondents ascribed a high “binding effect” to CSPs, especially in rural areas. Accordingly, the issue is about keeping young people in the regions of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Finally, respondents regarded the education of students as an “investment” that has to “pay off,” therefore expecting a corresponding output (return on investment). This is why CSPs are a building block in the operationalization of personnel strategies of the companies. These descriptions reflect above all the customer role and, of course, the gatekeeper role, as CSPs and the provision of study places entails a conscious decision of the FPOs and NPOs. In the interviewees’ eyes (from FPOs and NPOs), program coordinators are perceived as having a “docking function” towards the FPOs and NPOs. In addition, respondents characterized the professors’ competence profiles as an ideal combination of a close business relation (or company proximity) and scientific know-how. Therefore, respondents regarded the co-design/co-authoring of curricula with professors and resulting CSP’s as a unique combination. Beyond that, respondents highlighted that study programs are capable of responding to qualification needs in an appropriate manner. Further, the interviewees put a special emphasis on the teaching of topical and relevant content. If it is not the case, pressure is put on the university via the university committees as a consequence. However, the demand for up-to-date teaching is generally well met by the case study university. The following citation taken from an interview with a representative of a big FPO (stemming from the automotive industry sector) underpins the presentation depicted above:

234

5

Results

So actually, it is ultimately this representation of the interests of the companies. And of course, it is also the communicator of university topics into the company and vice versa. So that we can simply state: Are the current issues communicated? And there we are certainly always a driver. This is often not done by the program coordinator but by the specific trainer, who then sees/does this in our business premises and does it in other places and is not taught at the university. Then pressure is quickly put on the university. That’s the advantage of this dual study program. (Interview #22)

Some respondents elucidated that, on the one hand, small and medium-sized FPOs and NPOs have the problem of filling their study places, which has been justified by the problem of finding suitable applicants for CSPs. But, on the other hand, to coordinate it with corresponding capacities (limited number of free study places) at the campuses of the case study university seems to be another (associated) problem. This holds especially true for technical core areas such as IT or engineering. Finally, all of the respondents saw the broadly diversified range of courses offered by the university as sometimes (too) much variety. The respondents’ descriptions reflect (above all) the roles of co-conductor of degree courses and customer. The role of co-conductor comes up in carrying out day-to-day operations with program coordinators. The role of a customer providing valuable feedback was exemplified in the context of teaching current topics.

5.3.3.2 Perception of FPO and NPO Representatives at the Institutional Level Concerning the meso level, we refer to FPO and NPO representatives’ engagement in committee work of the university. Respondents (from the group of FPOs and NPOs) named the supervisory board and the campus university councils primarily as central to the representation of their interests. Additionally, these serve as feedback loops for both FPOs and NPOs and the case study university. It is noteworthy that the engagement in expert commissions and associated subcommittees were mostly not mentioned by interviewees. Furthermore, respondents stated that personalities from the ranks of the FPOs and NPOs shape the work of the campus university councils and the supervisory board in their own way. The following citation taken from a respondent illustrates this perception: “So, I am now influencing the university council because of me. There they discuss certain decisions about the direction in which some things are going.” (Interview #22)The respondents illustrated this with another example: the cooperation of FPOs and NPOs with the university is linked to the expectation that the latter will help master the challenges of digital transformation and e-mobility. This

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

235

should impact the design of CSPs and includes, for example, curricula focusing on teaching basic knowledge in computer science. Accordingly, respondents perceived (self-perception) their degree of influence as an evolutionary process that focuses increasingly on influencing at the content level rather than the big (strategic) picture. Some respondents appreciated the university more as a service provider for CSPs (which again reflects the customer role). The FPOs and NPOs provide feedback on content issues and state their concrete needs in the shape of a certain number of study places (which reflects the gatekeeper role). The FPOs and NPOs are also more actively involved in entirely new and important topics (reflects the co-author of curricula role). Nevertheless, the respondents saw the supervisory board’s principal task in the supervision and implementation of a unified strategy for CSPs and, thus, the multi-campus university. It should also be noticed that a few respondents perceived the stringent training concept of CSPs critically against the backdrop of societal transformations. One of the respondents required that future graduates would need more and better reflective skills. In addition, the respondents also explained that the regional focus of the university (in the shape of a multi-campus university) constitutes a disadvantage: the geographical distribution of the university would encourage the development of “local principalities.” At the local level, a conglomerate of FPOs and NPOs and professors based there (campus level) would form, which would shape the courses of study according to their individual needs. The following citation taken from a respondent (from the group of FPOs and NPOs) highlights the finding: Yes, the disadvantage is always the fact that when I’m sitting in (location x) and there are two or three companies sitting around me, which are perhaps also dominant to some extent, where I can, of course, have the feeling that I’m alone here. That I am the king of the region, and what do I care about the emperor in Rome? (Interview #15)

Finally, some FPO and NPO respondents also criticized the role of the Ministry of Science in dealing with the studied university. One of them described how the responsible division perceives the university as a purely legal case that should be standardized and ruled according to the previously valid standards of the higher education system. The respondent exemplified this in the context of the university’s personnel decisions, with the ministry acting as a “watchdog” and pushing for its favored candidate. In addition, respondents referred to the supervisory board chairmanship of the Minister of Science and the resulting fact that the responsible ministry is present at all critical university committee meetings. The respondents made many references to the university’s and university type’s history of origins and its associated problems. However, they also made it clear

236

5

Results

that they were proud to have played an essential part in the creation of the university type. The following citation underpins the perception in the direction of the university type: “So, what I associate above all with the fact that, let me say, this is really the only university where business, politics and higher education really pull together.” (Interview #15).

5.3.4

Perceived Practices of Government and Policy Representatives’ Third Mission Governance

The stakeholder group of government and policy representatives comprises representatives of the administration and further stakeholders from higher education policy as well as higher education experts and consultants concerning CSPs.

5.3.4.1 Perception of Top-level Administration Representatives Regarding legal matters, the supervisory function is carried out in cooperation between the chancellor’s office (university) and the ministry’s department (government). Furthermore, the ministry’s department fulfills an intermediary function to bring higher education policy goals in line with the university’s goals. It also occupies a gatekeeper position in terms of its rights to approve structural and developmental affairs of the university and personnel matters. These aspects embed a supervisory function in terms of strategic issues. In a superordinate sense, this reflects two essential roles that should be understood: the roles of rule maker and financier. In addition, stakeholders from the higher education environment (e.g., higher education experts) assume the role of facilitator and/or supervisor towards the case study university and government representatives. The facilitator and supervisor roles can be summarized in a superordinate way as the lobbyist role. Further, we discuss the interviewees’ perceptions and will use them as examples to illustrate the roles. We start with the level of the university and ministry. Here, one interviewee (from the top-level university administration) reported the importance of capacity management for the case study university and the resulting application of so-called “capacity talks” to steer the university. The respondent highlighted that this process differs significantly from other universities or universities of applied sciences, where quotas control study places. In the case of the DHBW, the process was described as very time-consuming as the capacities are controlled via groups of 30 study places each and associated funding/financing. This reflects the financier role, for example. Furthermore, the respondent mentioned that their main contact persons are representatives from the ministry’s

5.3 Perceived Practices of Third Mission Governance …

237

department. In legal or formal matters, the presidium (general organizational unit) decides in all university matters. In addition, the respondent emphasized that it is not the campus management teams who take decisions in a formal prospect. This reflects the supervisory role in terms of legal matters to some extent. Respondents from the ranks of the ministry as well as the university management characterized the tasks and role of the ministry’s department as the first contact point which establishes links to other departments in fundamental issues of higher education. In addition, the department works as a back office for the chair of the supervisory board. The chairmanship, held by the minister, was explained by one respondent (from the higher education policy area) for reasons of university policy which is reflected in the given form of the chairmanship of the supervisory board. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted that it was a matter of accompanying the type of higher education institution and demonstrating a strong governmental commitment to that type of university. In addition, it was intended to show that there are limits of industrial influence on academic selfgovernance and that this is ensured through state supervision. The respondent added that the structure of the multi-campus university combines the elements of standardization, quality assurance, and decentralization and that there is no “role model” for the type of university. Hence, these descriptions reflect the roles as rule maker and supervisor in legal ad strategic matters to some extent.

5.3.4.2 Perception of Higher Education Policy Representatives and Higher Education Experts Within the ranks of higher education policy and higher education experts, the respondents referred to a considerable extent to the foundation history of the DHBW and the principal ideas behind it. For example, one fundamental idea for the case study university’s foundation process was to establish senates and university councils on the campus levels in the regions to foster identification with the university campus and to incorporate stakeholders at the level of campuses in a binding framework. Thus, it was concluded that central bodies (senate and supervisory board) are of little interest for stakeholders from a region far away from the capital of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, where the headquarter of the case study university has been established. Further, the interviewees highlighted that the structure of the case study university in principle “conveys a feeling” of “working for a region” and “being active in an entrepreneurial sense.” This was depicted as one of the reasons for the positive development of the university. In the context of its history, it was also important to the respondents to emphasize that upon founding the university, bachelor’s degrees (of CSPs) were made compatible with the higher education

238

5

Results

system. In addition, it was also significant for the foundation process of the case study university to find the right balance between self-determination and determination by third parties (FPOs and NPOs). In the view of respondents, the case study university had succeeded in doing this. However, respondents also criticized that co-determination at the university was sometimes going too far. Hence, these descriptions provided a foundation for the attribution of a supervisor role in strategic terms. However, the interviewees also emphasized the positive side of the situation: the professors identify strongly with the system of CSPs. They are therefore strongly engaged, and with the binding participation of the FPOs and NPOs in the university, a good mixture has been found as a result. Therefore, the FPOs and NPOs have been equipped with university membership to ensure a curricular link. In addition, one respondent (higher education expert) highlighted the aspect that a cooperation culture across all institutional sectors has been well established in Baden-Wuerttemberg, which also encouraged the development of the university. Further, the respondent also explained that the structural construction of the case study university as a multi-campus university with a headquarter unit (presidium) should ensure the genuine autonomy of the university. The goal was, so to speak, to make the department in the ministry superfluous. All these descriptions provided a basis for the attribution of the roles of supervisor, facilitator, and lobbyist to the stakeholder group of higher education policy representatives and higher education experts. An important issue for all respondents was the university’s mission to complement the existing university system and generate young talent for the economy in Baden-Wuerttemberg and its economic regions. A respondent explained the mission issue of the university according to a corporate model as follows: Because entrepreneurial university means yes, that is the misunderstanding, not that it is supposed to make any monetary profit, but that it is a question of mentality. And basically, a university can only really be highly efficient if it is mainly autonomous and if its members understand each other in an entrepreneurial way. In other words, I want to achieve maximum profits in teaching and research, so to speak. (Interview #24)

In this context, it was also mentioned that suitable professors were required to fulfill the mission depicted. Furthermore, respondents described the tension/challenge between the fragmentation of CSP offers on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need for standardization to be able to connect to the labor market. Hence, the interviewees emphasized the need for the case study university to offer compatible and comparable study contents for FPOs and NPOs. As

5.4 Summary of Stakeholders’ Roles in Third Mission Governance

239

such, it is also necessary to critically question whether certain FPOs and NPOs need the study offers or whether demand follows a short-lived trend. This is also a challenge for the university because its task is to ensure sustainability. These descriptions provide a foundation for the attribution of a supervisor role in strategic terms to the stakeholder group of higher education policy representatives and higher education experts.

5.4

Summary of Stakeholders’ Roles in Third Mission Governance

This section summarizes the findings of our analysis arranged by micro- and meso-level and linked to the stakeholder groups. The section concludes with an overview of stakeholders’ roles and influence areas with regard to third mission governance in the case of CSPs in a table (see Table 5.7). Summary on stakeholders’ roles and influence at the micro level Professors as program coordinators execute CSPs at the micro level and shape curricula in a given frame with a certain degree of freedom. Therefore, they exert a high degree of influence on teaching content for two reasons: first, program coordinators allocate teaching assignments resulting in a curriculum designed by selecting part-time lecturers. Second, program coordinators conduct teaching as professors. Thus, they determine the teaching content in person. Further, program coordinators must deal with several issues: students and FPOs and NPOs require up-to-date and practice-oriented teaching that must be balanced with academic norms and standards. In addition, the recruitment of a sufficient number and quality of part-time lecturers is crucial in this process. Students require CSPs with appropriate practice-oriented teaching content and a bachelor’s degree, which allows them to attend master’s degree courses after successfully graduating from a CSP. Accordingly, students participate in the evaluation of teaching with a relatively active role. For example, they report directly to a program coordinator if teaching quality was, in their view, subpar and make use of official evaluation instruments to provide valuable feedback. FPOs and NPOs require appropriate practice-oriented teaching content as well. They also expect the university to deliver current teaching content quickly and flexibly. FPOs and NPOs perceive the university’s course offerings as too fragmented, although generally, the university seems to do a good job at teaching. If the quality of teaching is not appropriate, the FPOs and NPOs use their university membership to influence the university to improve. The provision of study places is considered

240

5

Results

as an investment for which a return is expected. An evaluation of teaching is also carried out on the side of the FPOs and NPOs in the shape of feedback interviews with their students. Summary on stakeholders’ roles at the meso level Program coordinators perceive themselves at the meso level as professionals for curriculum proposals on study programs, and in joint coordination, valuable feedback on such proposals is gained from the FPOs and NPOs (see Table 5.7). To a certain extent, the process is institutionalized through the subcommissions associated with the expert commissions. Remarkably, curriculum development is very interest-driven as campus interests play a crucial role. The demand for study programs is driven by the corporate side to a considerable extent, and the university reacts with a suitable offer. The role of the university management follows two trajectories: first, on a regional level, it forms the external regional representation of the university (see Table 5.7). In addition, the university management is responsible for the external representation of the university, especially towards the Ministry of Science, state politics, and the leading industry associations. Internally, it is responsible for coordinating the cooperation among professors and harmonizing the study programs’ development with the university’s overall strategy. Second, at the general organizational level, the university management is responsible for the joint development of the university. This includes harmonizing the various regional interests of the campuses and was described as a very challenging task. Against the background of the findings, it can be concluded that the professors are responsible for the implementation of a stringent higher education policy strategy and, as it were, fill it with life. FPOs and NPOs perceive the interest-driven campus development of curricula proposals as a disadvantage of the studied multi-campus university. It is obvious that the interests of a few companies around a campus are served (by a campus of the university) but that this does not extend to an overriding interest of all FPOs and NPOs. Overall, the FPO and NPO representatives see themselves as strategic advisors and companions of the university and therefore exert influence (see Table 5.7). Hence, their scope of action is limited to the campus university councils and the supervisory board. FPOs and NPOs criticize the role of the Ministry of Science, suggesting it views the university “purely legally” and “interferes” in important personnel issues. Against the background of the descriptions, it can be concluded that the FPOs and NPOs have a strong influence on the operational design of the CSPs. As such, FPOs and NPOs exert a powerful influence on the strategic course and the content course of the university in accordance with their own needs.

Students

Program coordinator

Professors

Student of a study program

University management

Formal position

Stakeholder group

University, campus, committees

Micro level Study program, campus

Meso level

Development of new and adaptation of existing study programs according to appropriate academic standards

Delivery and implementation of study programs according to appropriate academic standards

Influence area

Customer (feedback provision)

(continued)

Up to date education, evaluation of the study programs, and connection options in the direction of a master’s degree

representative/facilitator, Internal and external rapporteur, capacity control representation, regional representation, and coordination of professors and study program proposals

Editor/author of curricula, steward of assigned course of study and/or field of study

Committees

Meso level

Detected roles Intermediary, conductor of study programs, guardian of academic quality

Center of interaction

Micro level Study program, campus

Level of analysis

Tab. 5.7 Summary of stakeholders’ roles and influence areas

5.4 Summary of Stakeholders’ Roles in Third Mission Governance 241

Note. Author’s representation.

University, committees

Rulemaker, financier, lobbyist

Meso level

Government and policy Ministry Officials, representatives Supervisory Board Chair

University, campus, committees

Co-designer/-author of curricula, customer (capacity request), lobbyist (representing own interests)

Lobbyist/facilitator, customer (feedback provision)

Meso level

Campus, committees

Detected roles

Manager, division manager, delegate, supervisory board co-chair

Meso level

Student representation delegate

Center of interaction

Gatekeeper, co-conductor of study programs, customer (feedback provision)

Level of analysis

Formal position

HR manager, training Micro level Study officer, practical program, supervisor campus

Profit and non-profit organization representatives

Stakeholder group

Tab. 5.7 (continued)

Influencing university strategy in terms of fitting with the higher education system and structural developments

Influencing university strategy in the direction of development of study programs and content requests

Provision of study places, training junior staff in line with demand, and evaluation of study programs

Guarantee participation rights and gain feedback

Influence area

242 5 Results

5.5 Salient Issues of Stakeholders Exerting Influence …

243

Government and policy representatives’ roles and influences refer to the university’s capacity management and the utilization of the available study places. This has turned out to be an important concern for the Ministry of Science. At the case study university, the process of capacity management was characterized as very time-consuming since a different logic applies here. The supervisory board chair held by the Ministry of Science was justified with higher education policy reasons. The chair reflects the state’s substantial commitment to this type of university. Further, state supervision and control are supposed to protect academic freedom and limit the influence of FPOs and NPOs on the university. It has been remarkable that a strong orientation of the type of university to one mission became apparent: development and provision of CSP’S. This encourages the goal to complement the existing higher education system of the federal state, accompanied by the objective of providing the regional economy with skilled workers. For this reason, FPOs and NPOs are given a university membership to ensure a direct link to the curricula. Against the background of these descriptions, one may conclude that the policy level has a strong influence on the legal and strategic issues of the university. Finally, Table 5.7 presents a comprehensive summary of stakeholders’ roles and influence areas:

5.5

Salient Issues of Stakeholders Exerting Influence on Third Mission Governance

The present section reduces complexity again by presenting the topics in a higher-level aggregation. It also summarizes and compares the issues related to decision-making regarding CSPs that emerged from the most obvious narratives. We structured our presentation according to the level of analysis (micro and meso level) and the stakeholder group. The tables for this part of the analysis are found in the electronic supplementary material (Appendix).

5.5.1

Salient Issues Related to CSPs at the Micro Level

Professors The work of the professors in their function as program coordinators could be clustered into three subject areas in relation to the third mission. First, the practiceintegrated model of CSPs provided a strong regulatory framework. Second, it involved a high degree of coordination and administrative work, and third, there was a high degree of freedom in the implementation of CSPs within the given framework.

244

5

Results

Students Students were simultaneously employees and regularly enrolled students. In their dual role, three issues became important: first, the teaching of practice-relevant content; second, the support of the course of study with fixed contacts on the part of the university (program coordinator) and the FPO and NPO (practical supervisor); and third, the provision of an academic qualification path with career options, e.g., towards a master’s degree. FPO and NPO representatives At the micro level, we saw (for example) HR managers of FPOs and NPOs who were responsible for the implementation of CSPs. Three issues could be summarized as follows: first, CSPs were an integral part of the personnel recruitment strategy; second, current teaching content was required to meet qualification needs as accurately as possible; and third, professors, in their function as program coordinators, were perceived as competent contact persons for the related issues as well as for the FPOs and NPOs in general. We could not identify any topics at the micro level within the stakeholder group of government representatives and representatives of the higher education policy sphere.

5.5.2

Salient Issues Related to CSPs at the Meso Level

Professors At the meso level, two professorial functions appeared. On the one hand, there was the role of the program coordinator, and on the other hand, there were professors with offices in middle and top management of the university (campus level and central level). First of all, program coordinators appeared in connection with the maintenance and further development of the curricula. This work took place across campuses through committees. These professors considered the maintenance and further development of the curricula as their core task. Second, the maintenance and further development of curricula into study programs were strongly driven by interests. These depended on individual interests of the FPOs and NPOs, on individual interests of the professors, and the interests of a campus. Third, the process of further development and introduction of new study programs was characterized as highly regulated. The professors working in university management at campus level (location) considered the following topics to be important: first, one considered oneself a campus

5.5 Salient Issues of Stakeholders Exerting Influence …

245

manager for a region and took care of the academic profile, and second, the role of the higher authorities was described as interfering and regulating. In addition, the professors working at the top management level emphasized the following aspects particularly strongly: first, the complementary role of the university in the state’s higher education system; second, the great challenge of steering all interests in a strategic direction; and third, the strong position of the ministry as a controlling authority. Students Two areas proved to be important student topics: first, that students’ concerns, such as the drafting of study and training contracts, were heard in the committees. Second, due to the dual role of student and employee, there was less time to actively participate in the committee discussions, even if this was supported by their employers and the case study university. FPO and NPO representatives The representatives of the FPOs and NPOs emphasized the following three aspects in particular: first, a solid commitment to the case study university and its study programs, which was demonstrated by a high level of involvement in the supervisory board and the campus university councils. Second, the university as a solution provider was to contribute with suitable qualification offers to deal with the current challenges of the industry, and third, the strong position of the ministry (state) was discussed. Government and policy representatives The government representatives and the representatives of the higher education policy sphere emphasized the following topics: first, the strong commitment to the type of higher education institution intended to complement the existing higher education system. Second, the strong state position was justified by the fact that, on the one hand, a permanent higher education policy strategy should be guaranteed. On the other hand, the case study university should be protected against the strong influence from the side of FPOs and NPOs. Third, the supply policy of CSPs was characterized by the small group principle and demand-oriented financing linked to it and was accompanied by the criticism that the current supply was too fragmented.

246

5.5.3

5

Results

Overall Comparison of Salient Issues with Regard to CSPs

In our comparison, three common issues were identified, even if they were described from an individual point of view with different nuances. In the end, they come together as the other side of the same coin. The strong role of the state The strong governmental position could be observed as an issue within all stakeholder groups. In the stakeholder group of professors, this was characterized by the reporting obligation, and in some cases, the role of the state was perceived as an intervention in university autonomy. In the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs, the strong state role is apparently seen as competition to their own strong influence. Within the group of students, the strong state position ensured that the academic qualification path was compatible with the higher education system. And within the group of government representatives and representatives of the higher education policy sphere, it can be argued that the strong position was justified to secure a coherent higher education policy strategy. Strong commitment to the type of university and its complementary role The strong commitment to the type of higher education institution also repeatedly focused on the basic ideas behind the higher education concept of CSPs and its founding history. In essence, it could be observed that the stakeholder groups of professors, FPO and NPO representatives, as well as representatives from the state and higher education policy spheres, were strongly committed to the type of higher education institution of our studied case and consequently seemed to identify strongly with the idea of CSPs. High demand for up-to-date and practical relevant teaching content Finally, it was observed that the governance of the university system and thus third mission governance posed a challenge. For example, this was reflected in the stakeholder groups (professors, FPO and NPO representatives, government and policy representatives) by different descriptions and thus issues. Among them were a too fragmented range of courses or the maintenance and development of courses of study tailored to the needs or the supply of regional labor markets, i.e., working for a region by offering suitable study programs. Within the stakeholder groups of students, FPO and NPO representatives, as well as professors, the topic of study content seemed to be of high importance, even though it appeared in different nuances of perception.

6

Discussion of Results

This chapter aims to discuss our empirical findings through the lens of the theoretical model and interpret them against the background of the underlying concepts and theories. We do so in the following four thematic areas, which were clustered according to our posed research question and its underlying subquestions: first, findings concerning the organization of CSPs; second, findings referring to the stakeholders involved in the governance of CSPs; third, findings relating to stakeholders’ roles, in particular concerning the governance of CSPs; fourth, findings referring to the influence of stakeholders on the content of CSPs and fifth, overall findings which entail the impact of stakeholders on third mission governance in the case of CSPs. Finally, we revisit the expectations of the study that we raised at the beginning of this dissertation (see the end of Chapter 1).

6.1

Discussion of Findings

6.1.1

Organization of CSPs in the Context of a Multi-Campus University

The CSPs bundled at the DHBW were the focus of our knowledge interest. To introduce our discussion and interpretation, we take a look at the study model of CSPs found in our empirical study and discuss its organization. Our case study university featured almost exclusively the practice-integrated model of CSPs in operation as proposed by the concept of the German Science Council (2013). The CSPs take place in the field of initial education. Those types of programs form a binding prototype for the entire case study university and its operations or a role model for all activities of the case study university. In addition, the case study university gears all its operations and strategies towards fulfilling this one © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_6

247

248

6

Discussion of Results

purpose, which means that almost all bachelor’s degree programs are developed and offered according to the practice-integrated model of CSPs found in our study. Further, the orientation alignment with a primary model for CSPs (the practice-integrated model of CSPs) played an important role for the orientation and thus for the strategic direction setting of our case study university. Compared to Krone’s (2015) study, which was devoted exclusively to the combination model of CSPs (Krone, 2015a), the present study contributes to gaining knowledge about CSPs in the field of the practice-integrated model. According to the definition of the German Science Council (2013), the practice-integrated model is characterized by structured training phases at the cooperating FPO and NPO and academic training phases at the case study university (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a, p. 23). Our findings are in line with that dual structuring. Several studies have identified CSPs as a hybrid format between vocational and higher education (Graf, 2012, 2013a; Krone, 2015a). In addition, CSPs were attested to have an interface function in the education system (Wissenschaftsrat, 2013a). This kind of hybridity is also evident in CSPs in the shape of the abovementioned practice-integrated format. We recall that hybridity was understood as a combination of at least two or more structures or core processes that stem from organizations with different sectoral origins. Accordingly, CSPs in the shape of the practice-integrated format contain not only the combination of two learning venues and their organizational and content coordination but also other elements reflecting hybridity. For example, the block model and teaching in small groups (or classes) go back to vocational schooling. The block model refers to separating a teaching phase at the university and a practical phase in a FPO and NPO following a strict three-month rhythm. Moreover, the element of teaching in small groups (or classes) can be traced back to both vocational schools and universities of applied sciences. Courses taught at universities of applied sciences are also held in small groups of no more than 40 students (Lackner, 2016). Thus, one may conclude that the course structure of CSPs is entangled with different, initially separate, elements from different sectors. Thus, the CSPs studied are organized in hybrid formats in many ways. The following subsection of our discussion and interpretation is devoted to the geographic dimension of the case study university. We have found that the geographical dimension is part of the multi-campus university structure and plays a significant role in CSPs. The case study university (Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University, DHBW) is structured as a multi-campus university as conceptualized in Chapter 3 and presented in Chapter 5 based on our empirical data.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

249

The case study university consists of 12 campuses, which are located in the territory of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and whose geographical distribution corresponds to the 12 economic regions of the federal state of BadenWuerttemberg in the context of its regional innovation system. Three aspects of the multi-campus university structure turn out to be particularly important in implementing and supplying the regional economy with offers of CSPs: First, the physical presence of the case study university through a campus ensures spatial, quasi-customer, proximity to the FPOs and NPOs in the regions of the Baden-Wuerttemberg. This allows the professors at the case study university to cooperate closely with representatives of FPOs and NPOs to develop and advance the CSPs on offer. Accordingly, the physical presence of the case study university via a campus facilitates networking with the regional and local business communities and broadens the stakeholder base for collaboration. Second, the physical presence of the case study university means that students of CSPs do not have to move away from their home region to study. This means that they can stay available for the local labor market as well-trained specialists and managers. Consequently, the physical presence of the case study university contributes to the advancement of the local employment area and regional development and fulfills its third mission through this. Third, due to this physical presence, the case study university itself functions as an economic factor for the attractiveness of one of the economic regions in Baden-Wuerttemberg. A campus has professors, employees, and a budget—all three aspects contribute to economic prosperity at the local level. Consequently, the multi-campus structure of the case study university should also count as a factor in promoting regional development. Thus, our study confirms Laredo’s (2007) hypothesis regarding the third mission and its underestimated territorial dimension. Accordingly, the case study university and its campuses are directly connected to the local employment area and supply it with graduates at an appropriate qualification level (Laredo, 2007b, p. 10). Thus, the territorial dimension in the shape of physical presence by the case study university plays a significant role in its third mission implementation in the field of initial professional qualification in the context of mass tertiary education through CSPs. The governance of our case study university as a multi-campus university was classified by the stakeholders interviewed (representatives of professors, FPOs and NPOs, and government and higher education policy) as a complex undertaking and very time-consuming. The steering difficulties were illustrated, for example, by the fact that specific offers of CSPs would develop at a campus in conjunction with the FPOs and NPOs there and undermine the harmonization of study programs that had been jointly sought. Consequently, FPOs and

250

6

Discussion of Results

NPOs, on the one hand, demand harmonization and, at the same time, undermine it. This is due to various local competing stakeholder interests on the part of the FPOs and NPOs. This was described by the stakeholders interviewed as the formation of “local principalities” (from the perspective of FPOs and NPOs) or as “following fads” (from the perspective of representatives of government and higher education policy). Thus, our case study university exemplifies the structural burden of a multi-campus university in uniting a variety of site interests (campus interests) under one roof and steering them in one strategic direction. The interviewees’ statements from the group of university professors in a university management function confirmed this structural burden and the underlying governance challenge concerning the third mission. As conceptualized in Chapter 3, our case study university typifies a multicampus university with a central organization that combines several semiautonomous, regionally-based campus locations (Austin & Jones, 2016). Our findings imply similar structurally driven governance difficulties in the case of a multi-campus university as found in Pinheiro, Charles & Jones (2017) and Pinheiro & Berg (2016), particularly regarding the geographic distance and the associated local anchored interests of stakeholders. In particular, our case suggests that the structurally designed geographic distance between multi-campus university campuses constitutes a challenge for coordination and management, and thus the underlying governance system. Our case study university exemplifies the third mission of higher education institutions in the area of teaching with its CSPs at the center. Consequently, the governance challenges associated with the multi-campus university structure are also relevant for the third mission. Another finding of our study indicates that the case study university was created and established to address a specific supply gap which lay in delivering the regional economy with qualified junior employees. The regular universities had not been able to handle this shortage on their own. Thus, we conclude that the case study university was founded on concrete economic needs. Furthermore, the findings show that the case study university emerged from the initiative of business and government at the regional level (state of Baden-Wuerttemberg). As a result, the case study university stands as a regional supply institution for qualified junior staff, indicating an entrepreneurial activity as described by Etzkowitz (2008). He described how a university can emerge as a (or being transformed into a) “significant source of human capital” through entrepreneurial initiative, as it applies to the case study university. The term implies that through its teaching mission, the university develops and offers qualification programs tailored to market needs—as the example of the CSPs clearly shows. This can be interpreted as an entrepreneurial identity within the university. In this context, Etzkowitz (2008)

6.1 Discussion of Findings

251

brings up the concept of the Entrepreneurial University, which he described as a driver of entrepreneurial activity (Etzkowitz, 2008, p. 28). Consequently, the case study university can be characterized as an entrepreneurial university that is well embedded in the regional innovation system. As outlined in Chapter 3, we took up the concept of the Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a). We will discuss the findings of the case study university and the underlying CSPs structurally and functionally. The aim of this discussion is to carve out how the organization of CSPs is influenced by that concept and to understand the nature of CSPs better. According to the Entrepreneurial University concept (Clark, 1998a), such type of university has a high degree of autonomy to shape and implement its strategic agenda. In addition, an Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a) works closely with other institutional sectors, such as industry, on an equal footing. The cooperation between university members (e.g., professors) and external stakeholders (e.g., FPO and NPO representatives) in the field of an Entrepreneurial University1 takes place at a regional level. Our findings suggest that the case study university contains elements of the individual dimensions of an Entrepreneurial University, and the case study university appears as an autonomous university organization on the federal state level in Germany (Baden-Wuerttemberg). Further, it was found that the case study university includes the cooperation with FPOs and NPOs as a stakeholder group at the meso level through the inclusion of representatives from this stakeholder group in university committees. Finally, at the micro level, university professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs jointly carry out the CSPs jointly, reflecting cooperation at eye level. Below, we discuss aspects of the five dimensions of the Entrepreneurial University based on the findings of the case study university. Aspects of the strengthened steering core The dimension of a strengthened steering core refers to a strengthening of university hierarchies to act in one strategic direction as a university. The strengthened steering core can take on different shapes. The findings of the case study university reflect a strengthened steering core in terms of the clear hierarchical structure of the case study university. Our findings indicate the strong position of the executive committee at the central level of the case study university and the explicit hierarchical subordination of the campus executive committees—including the campuses of the case 1

As presented in Chapter 3, an Entrepreneurial University can be characterized in more detail by five dimensions. These include the strengthened steering core, the expanded developmental periphery, the diversified funding base, the stimulated academic heartland, and the integrated entrepreneurial culture (Clark, 1998a, pp. 5–8).

252

6

Discussion of Results

study university—as legally dependent organizational subunits. The findings relate to the meso level of the case study university. The clear hierarchical structure also reflects the structure of the multi-campus university, which refers to the geographic location of the campuses in different regions of the state Baden-Wuerttemberg. The findings also show that the strengthened steering core is reflected at the micro level of the case study university in what manifests itself in the extended professorial function that comes with the role of a program coordinator. The program coordinator is responsible for implementing CSPs on-site and has been given several tasks (for example, organization of the study program, design of the curriculum, didactics). Thus, the program coordinator is firmly integrated into the university hierarchy through their reporting obligation to the campus management. In addition, the program coordinator has a fixed responsibility for the capacity of study places linked to a CSP. Also, the performance of a respective study program is measured using indicators such as the capacity utilization of student places which is an object of the reporting obligation to the campus management. Aspects of the expanded developmental periphery The expanded developmental periphery addresses the distribution of powers within the university organization linked to the departments. For the case study university, findings differ from other university organizations to some extent because the departments spread out to two levels of the organization. At the central level (meso level) of the case study university, departments are organized in cross-campus departments. These are represented by expert commissions (committee system) and exist for the academic disciplines of business, engineering, social work, and health sciences (thus, four academic disciplines are organized in four cross-campus departments). The key stakeholder groups of the case study university are represented in the expert commissions (of the cross-campus departments): first and foremost, those are the professors and the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs, which hold the majority of seats therein. Within the expert commissions, the CSPs are harmonized and standardized according to academic standards. In essence, the aim is to maintain and develop a strategic portfolio of CSPs in line with the needs and interests of the key stakeholder groups. At the decentralized level (micro level), each cross-campus department has a campus school (understood as a representation or representative office) at one of the twelve geographical locations of the multi-campus university. There, the CSPs are carried out, and impulses for the further development of the portfolio of CSPs are gained from day-to-day operations and taken up, reviewed, and transferred to the central level. The CSPs are implemented jointly by program coordinators and representatives of FPOs and NPOs. The concerns of students are also heard regarding issues of experienced teaching quality.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

253

These findings conclude that a cross-campus department has its power distributed at two levels, namely at the central level (meso level) bundled in one of the expert commissions and on the decentralized level (micro level) at a campus school with the program coordinators at the center. This constellation stands for an expanded developmental periphery at the case study university. The most important finding is that power is shared with representatives of FPOs and NPOs. Aspects of a diversified funding base The diversified funding base means that the Entrepreneurial University gains its money from different financial sources. Our findings show that funds from the state budget of Baden-Wuerttemberg almost entirely finance the case study university. Consequently, it is possible to conclude that the criteria are not met in this dimension. Further, our findings indicate that the university does not receive direct funding from FPOs and NPOs to conduct CSPs. However, a contextual review of the results reveals that the case study university is indirectly co-funded by FPOs and NPOs. The latter receive full university membership by providing a study place in a CSP and pay students a contractually agreed salary during the term of a study program. This has been illustrated, for example, in the interviews with representatives of FPOs and NPOs using a calculation example. The representatives of the FPOs and NPOs described the provision of a study place for a CSP as an investment of about 25,000 euros per year, which amounts to 75,000 euros over three years. Considering the calculation with the enrolled students at the case study university, the contribution of the FPOs and NPOs to the CSPs as a qualification measure is approximately 825 million euros per year. In comparison, the basic state funding of the case study university amounts to around 120 million euros per year. We conclude that these specific CSPs are a particular form of public–private partnership in the higher education sector, namely a regional variation in the German context. A kind of consensus between the regional government and regional FPOs and NPOs establishes a partnership committed to the qualification of young people in the shape of CSPs. The FPOs and NPOs—indirectly—contribute up to seven times more funding than the government in the public–private partnership. The indirect funding of the case study university is specifically carried out through the payment of salaries to the students for the duration of their study program. Through this, study places of CSPs manifest themselves. We have elaborated in Chapter 5 that the FPOs and NPOs occupy a gatekeeping role and thus determine the study places and their numbers. Therefore, we conclude that the FPOs and NPOs indirectly effect the diversified funding base.

254

6

Discussion of Results

Aspects of the stimulated academic heartland The stimulated academic heartland dimension in the case study refers to the fact that professors are primarily involved in providing service in teaching and research. In our case study, university professors were engaged in service provision linked to teaching. They developed the curricula and designed study programs in close cooperation with the FPOs and NPOs. We have found that the range of academic tasks just described is manifested in the function of the program coordinator. As already illustrated for the expanded developmental periphery dimension, core academic functions at the case study university were anchored at two levels of university organization: first, the campus schools as places of the implementation of CSPs stood for the academic core areas at the micro level. Second, the cross-campus departments manifested by the expert commissions centered around the strategic development of CSPs and shaped the (cross-campus) academic departments at the meso level. In addition, it was found that the stakeholder group of professors still held a majority of the votes in all relevant university committees and could thus determine the course of the case study university in cooperation with FPO and NPO representatives. Consequently, the academic profession had the majority of votes and, therefore, a power that was, however, limited by having to share it with the representatives of FPOs and NPOs. Aspects of the dimension integrated entrepreneurial culture Concerning the dimension of integrated entrepreneurial culture, we found at our case study university that all interviewees conveyed that they worked for a region and its development with the CSPs in focus. All activities of the case study university professors and employees were directed towards the CSPs. The interviewees perceived themselves as entrepreneurs for CSPs for “their” FPOs and NPOs, which the broad differentiation of the CSP offerings reflected as elaborated in Chapter 5. If we follow this line of reasoning, we conclude that an integrated entrepreneurial culture can be seen in the strong commitment to the CSP model and the associated work for a region and its FPOs and NPOs. Conclusions in the light of the Entrepreneurial University concept Our findings show evidence that the case study university contains trace elements of the Entrepreneurial University concept as defined by Clark (1998). However, our discussion of the findings has shown that the case study university is not an Entrepreneurial University in the traditional sense. Clark’s (1998) concept of the Entrepreneurial University originally means that the university undertakes its own ventures autonomously. This presupposes that the Entrepreneurial University is

6.1 Discussion of Findings

255

allowed to govern itself and is less exposed to influences from the state and the market. Rather, it develops its contributions in teaching and research independently in the sense of its own ideas and visions for society. However, at the case study university, the findings showed exposure to strong influences from the state (regional level, state sponsorship by the state of BadenWuerttemberg) and the FPOs and NPOs (gatekeeper function by providing study places). The high level of government influence is visible in the direct provision of almost all of the university’s basic funding. The strong influence of FPOs and NPOs is evident in the demand for relevant CSP offerings, for example. Therefore, one can conclude that the case study university is subject to the dictates of the state (represented by the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg) and the market (represented by FPOs and NPOs) and that this has nothing to do with the original idea of an Entrepreneurial University. Nevertheless, it was helpful to discuss the findings in light of the Entrepreneurial University concept and conclude that the case study university is a special type of Entrepreneurial University. The discussion of the findings in the light of Clark’s (1998) five dimensions allowed us to uncover the orientation of the case study university toward the development, implementation, and delivery of CSPs. More precisely, it allowed us to gain and solidify the impression that the entire structure of the case study university promotes and supports the development, implementation, and delivery of CSPs in an entrepreneurial manner and that it is the stakeholders (professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, students and government as well as higher education policy representatives) and their interactions that allow CSPs to flourish.

6.1.2

Stakeholders Involved in the Governance of CSPs

Based on the theoretical concepts of the Stakeholder Salience Approach and the Viable System Model, we have identified and located salient stakeholder groups of CSPs in the case study university, which were presented in detail in Chapter 5. Accordingly, the salient stakeholder groups for CSPs in our study include: first, professors, whereby two essential functions stand out, namely that of program coordinators and professors in a university management function; second, representatives from FPOs and NPOs; third, students and their representatives in the context of the official student representation; fourth, the group of government and higher education policy representatives, which is recruited from members of the Ministry of Science of Baden-Wuerttemberg and higher education policy associations.

256

6

Discussion of Results

Consequently, we found that professors, FPO and NPO representatives, student representatives, and representatives stemming from the ranks of government and higher education policy constituted the critical stakeholders for CSPs in our study. In the following, we discuss the identified key stakeholder constellation of the case study university in light of the Triple Helix concept (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b) and categorize it at the meso level as well as the micro level, using this concept as a guide. The stakeholder constellation at the meso level of our case study university for CSPs consists of representatives of profit and nonprofit organizations (industry), professors as the main representatives of the university, and higher education policy and regional government representatives (state/government). Our study has shown that the case study university resulted from an initiative between representatives of FPOs and NPOs (industry) and representatives of the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg (state/government). We found that the stakeholder constellation at the meso level of the case study university is similar to that shown in the Triple Helix concept (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b). Further, the study has shown that at the meso level of the case study university, representatives of the university (professors), representatives of FPOs and NPOs (industry), and representatives of higher education policy and government (regional level of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg) shaped framework conditions of the university for CSPs to advance this type of study program which is illustrated by Figure 6.1 on the left-hand side. It can also be stated that the case study university, with its offer focused exclusively on CSPs, supplies the economy of Baden-Wuerttemberg with graduates stemming from those programs. In addition, the case study university and its study program offerings complement the existing higher education system of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Accordingly, one can conclude that the case study university with its range of CSPs is an integral part of the regional innovation system of Baden-Wuerttemberg, which the context frame Regional Innovation System in Figure 6.1 illustrates. In other words, our findings provide evidence that the case study university with its CSPs makes a specific contribution to the promotion of local business communities as well as the regional economy in Baden-Wuerttemberg in terms of the Regional Innovation System (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Kuhlmann & Arnold, 2001; Lundvall, 1992, 2007).

Policy and government representatives (State)

CSPs Professors (University)

Regional Innovation System (RIS)

Fig. 6.1 Governance of third mission in the case of CSPs

Note. Author’s representation following the Triple Helix concept.

Macro-level

Meso-level

HR managers (Industry)

Professors (University)

CSPs

Students

Case study university

HR managers (Industry)

Micro-level

6.1 Discussion of Findings 257

258

6

Discussion of Results

At the micro level (program level), the case study university serves as a platform for CSPs and the underlying institutional collaboration between representatives of the university (professors) and representatives of FPOs and NPOs (for example, HR managers) to develop and implement CSPs. Students in a respective CSP are at the center of the effort, which is shown on the right-hand side of Figure 6.1. From the discussion, we conclude that the case study university supplies the regional economy with young talent through graduates from the CSPs, especially concerning small and medium-sized enterprises. Also, the case study university is embedded in the regional innovation system in a complementary role. A similar conclusion was also found out in a study by Schenkenhofer and Wilhelm (2019). The empirical findings of our study are in line with these findings. In addition, the following complementary findings emerged from our studied case: the multi-campus organizational structure of the university ensures that the case study university is present in different local business communities. Thus, we can characterize it as a regionally anchored special type of entrepreneurial university (see the discussion at the end of subsection 6.1.1). To conclude, the case study university fulfills a regional mission through training the labor force for the regional labor market through CSPs and thus fulfills the third mission. Finally, based on the discussion above and the listed constellation of key stakeholders at the case study university, as shown in Figure 6.1, it is obvious that the stakeholders drive the CSPs and thus govern the university’s third mission. Roles of Stakeholders in the Governance of CSPs In the following subsection, we discuss the identified roles of stakeholder groups in CSPs as we found them at the case study university. In particular, we refer to the findings relating to the roles of stakeholders concerning the governance of the CSPs. In Chapter 5, we identified, presented, and summarized the roles of stakeholder groups in the governance of CSPs at the case study university in a table, which forms the starting point for our discussion. Role of professors in the governance of CSPs The roles of the program coordinators were elaborated and presented in detail in Chapter 5 of this dissertation. In general terms, the present study suggests that program coordinators are crucial to the functioning of CSPs and thus the third mission of the case study university. The roles of program coordinators in CSPs can be categorized as task-oriented and appeared at two levels:

6.1 Discussion of Findings

259

First, at the micro level (program level), three major roles were identified among program coordinators, namely intermediary of CSPs, conductor for CSPs, and guardian of the academic quality of CSPs. The role of the intermediary refers to being the central contact person for all other key stakeholders of CSPs. The role of the conductor refers to the fact that program coordinators hold all the strings in the planning and implementation of CSPs with regard to organization, teaching content, and didactics. Finally, the role of the guardian of academic quality for program coordinators relates to their core professional function of being a professor and thereby looking after academic interests in the implementation of CSPs and balancing these with the interests of FPOs and NPOs (industry). Second, at the meso level (or institutional level of the case study university), two major roles could be identified among program coordinators, namely author of curricula and steward of assigned course of study/field of study. The role of author of curricula refers to the exchange with the FPO and NPO representatives to absorb impulses for further development of CSPs and translate these into suitable study offers. Through this, the portfolio of the case study university and the underlying campus experience can further progress. The program coordinator fulfills the role and the interactions that come with it in the context of university committees. The role of steward of assigned course of study/field of study of the program coordinator relates to the task of professional representation on university committees, particularly expert commissions (and their subcommittees) in the context of the professional cross-campus departments (business, engineering, social work, and health sciences) of the case study university. From a university management perspective, professors fulfill this function aligned with the structures of the case study university as a multi-campus university. The professors in university management are assigned four main roles, namely representative, facilitator, rapporteur, and capacity controller at the meso level of the case study university (institutional level). The roles of university managers in CSPs can generally be categorized as structure-oriented and operations-maintaining or operations-promoting. The representative role of university management refers to representing the campus or the case study university as a whole both internally and externally. The facilitator role of university management is to support program coordinators in developing and implementing new curricula for CSPs and their capacities (number of study places) in the university’s committee system. It is also a matter of embedding the initiatives for new CSPs (or a change in existing offerings) in the context of the overall strategy of the case study university or making them align with it. The roles of rapporteur and capacity controller go hand in hand: the university management is always obligated to report on developments of the CSPs on the campuses to the central

260

6

Discussion of Results

administration of the case study university as well as to the supervisory board and the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg. The main focus is on the utilization of the capacity (number of study places) funded. Thus, we observed the professors of the case study university were in close dialogue and partnership-based cooperation within a network-based structure between the university, FPOs and NPOs, students and representatives from the state sector, and other stakeholders. This has been characterized as quintessential for the application orientation of universities of applied sciences (Lackner, 2018, pp. 155–156). Our empirical findings point to that and provide evidence for the teaching-oriented third mission of CSPs within the sector of universities of applied sciences. The specific network of roles for professors in the field of CSPs influences the governance of the third mission. Role of students in the governance of CSPs Our study has shown that students of CSPs take on a customer role at the micro level. The observation that students actively used the opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of teaching experienced in CSPs supports this assessment. As quasi-customers of CSPs, students engaged from two sides: first, they gave their practice supervisor in the FPO or NPO regular feedback on the quality of teaching, and the latter brought this into the committee work of the case study university as well as into direct exchange with the responsible program coordinator. Second, through the student council, students participated as quasi-clients directly in the case study university’s committee work. They also used the direct channel of communication to their program coordinators. At the meso level, the customer role of students of CSPs became evident in the feedback loop already outlined above. In our case, the additional roles of facilitator and lobbyist were exemplified by initiatives advocating for better pay of part-time lecturers and influencing the design of the contract template for CSPs used at the FPOs and NPOs. Assuming the role of customer, the role profile of students of CSPs reveals a very demanding clientele, as seen in our empirical findings. As other studies also suggest, students and graduates of CSPs are a very ambitious stakeholder group that wants to move up the career ladder in FPOs and NPOs as quickly as possible. Often, graduates also want to pursue a master’s degree to optimize their opportunities in the job market (Krone et al., 2019, p. 210). Our empirical findings reflect that from an internal perspective.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

261

Role of FPO and NPO representatives in the governance of CSPs At the micro level of CSPs, our study identified three roles among representatives of FPOs and NPOs: gatekeeper, co-author of curricula, and customer (in terms of providing feedback). The gatekeeper role was illustrated by the provision of study places for CSPs. The co-authoring role for curricula became evident at our case study university in the design of the practical part of CSPs as well as in the (further) development and implementation of curricula of CSPs. The customer role in terms of providing feedback was evident from the involvement of the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs in the quality management of the case study university as well as from the direct exchange with the program coordinators. From the interaction between the three roles concerning CSPs, it can be concluded that the representatives of FPOs and NPOs are crucial for the functioning of CSPs at the operational level and thus the third mission and its governance. Moreover, the three roles can be categorized as task-oriented roles, which emphasizes their operational nature. At the institutional level (meso level) of the case study university, the following roles emerged among the representatives of FPOs and NPOs: co-author of curricula, customer concerning the demand for study place capacities, and lobbyist regarding teaching content. The co-authorship role became evident in our study to the extent that the representatives of FPOs and NPOs were systematically involved in the development process for curricula by the program coordinators. In addition, representatives of the FPOs and NPOs were represented on the university committees responsible for curriculum (development) at the case study university. The curricula co-authorship role was accompanied by two other roles: the customer role refers to the demand (capacity request) for a certain number of study places for a particular CSP at the case study university and its contact person, the program coordinator. The lobbyist role represents the content side of this demand. We observed that here the representatives of FPOs and NPOs used their voice on the university committees to demand specific course content and thus CSP offerings. The nature of the roles of the representatives of FPOs and NPOs can be clustered according to a capacity-maintaining axis and a capacity-creating axis. The roles identified in the case study indicate that at the institutional-strategic level of the university, the representatives of FPOs and NPOs had a very significant influential position concerning CSPs and thus third mission governance: they had influence at the content level (courses offered) as well as the capacity level (number of study places). The role network with its specific profile on the part of the FPOs and NPOs in CSPs indicated intensive cooperation with the case study university. As shown in other studies, the detected role profile reflects the

262

6

Discussion of Results

motives of FPOs and NPOs to participate in CSPs, namely to exert influence on competence development of students and associated with it, attracting qualified junior staff and building up academic knowledge on their own business premises (Krone et al., 2019). As seen in the literature and our empirical findings, the CSPs are perceived as an academic training program by the FPOs and NPOs (Kuhlee & Irmscher, 2018), reflecting their roles as gatekeepers, co-author, and customer and lobbyist. Role of government and higher education policy representatives in the governance of CSPs Among government and higher education policy representatives, the following roles were identified at the university’s meso (institutional) level: rule maker, financier, and lobbyist. The higher education legislation found at the level of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg reflected the role of the rule maker. Further, the discussion on university funding through a long-term contract illustrated the role of the financier at the level of the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The lobbyist role was evident in the strategic orientation of the case study university as a provider of graduates stemming from CSPs for the regional economy. Finally, the creation of additional study place capacity through CSPs for specific professions (for example, nursing professions) reflected another aspect of the lobbyist role. The three identified roles are interdependent and influence each other. Therefore, the role of the government can be categorized as both structure-oriented and supply-oriented. This makes the state (represented by the state government, the Ministry of Science, and higher education policy advisors of BadenWuerttemberg) a very significant stakeholder in the case study university and the CSPs it offers, and thus in its third mission. We conclude that the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg shapes the legal and financial framework of CSPs and hence its third mission. In this context, the state plays an active role and uses its position specifically to ensure a certain level of supply of CSPs. Thus, the state comes into play at the institutional-strategic level of the case study university. Our empirical findings suggest that the state is a very influential stakeholder regarding CSPs. As seen in the literature and our empirical findings, the role of the state lies in using education policy options to actively shape the trend toward academization of job profiles (Kuhlee & Irmscher, 2018). Our case study provides empirical evidence that education policy is implemented through CSPs.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

263

Discussion based on the five dimensions of the governance equalizer concept The following subsection discusses and interprets our findings in terms of the governance of our case study university and the CSPs it offers. The discussion enhances understanding of how stakeholders influence the governance of CSPs and thus the third mission. In other words, the discussion delivers the foundation for untangling the governance of the case study university and its CSPs. We found that the case study university offered CSPs exclusively. Furthermore, we found that the governance system of the case study university was designed towards the development and delivery of CSPs. In the previous section, we identified which key stakeholders are involved in the governance of CSPs and thus in the governance of the third mission. The following discussion section elaborates the relationships of the stakeholders at the meso level and micro level of the case study university and their influence on the governance of CSPs. For this purpose, we use the governance equalizer concept (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007)2 . Against this backdrop, we discuss the findings from the case study university. In doing so, we aim to unravel the specifics of third mission governance in CSPs. Accordingly, the path suggested should elaborate and quantify the complex web of relationships and governance characteristics of the CSPs at the case study university. Aspects of state regulation (SR) Based on our empirical investigations, we found a changing role of the state in regulating universities of applied sciences. The German higher education system has been characterized by a combination of strong state regulation on the one hand and strong academic self-government on the other (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007, p. 146). Our data show strong government regulation of the case study university at the regional level by the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg. Different interviews present a varied picture of the role of the ministry in regulating the DHBW depending on which stakeholder group they represent. The representatives from both the university and the FPOs and NPOs noted and criticized the strong state regulation. The interviews with university professors stemming from the ranks of university management at central and decentralized levels of the university revealed

2

The governance equalizer concept and its five dimensions are used as presented in Chapter 3. Those include state regulation, stakeholder guidance, competition, academic selfgovernance, and managerial self-governance.

264

6

Discussion of Results

that such heavy state regulation of the university was perceived as a threat to university autonomy. We found that in the case study university, the aspects of government oversight and government control were not strictly separated. To be more precise, the relevant division in the Ministry of Science of Baden-Wuerttemberg is responsible for the supervision of the case study university. At the same time, the supervisory board of the case study university is responsible for controlling the university’s business. The supervisory board chair alternates between chaired the Minister of Science (or a high-ranking representative of the Ministry of Science) of BadenWuerttemberg and a representative from the ranks of the FPOs and NPOs. This fact was criticized by the university managers interviewed. Further, on the FPOs’ and NPOs’ side, the ministry’s role was characterized as being almost overly watchful. However, representatives of the higher education policy sector argued in the interviews that the new type of higher education institution (the case study university) received a clear mandate from the government (the supply of the regional economy with CSPs). To ensure this in the university’s day-to-day business, the interviewees from the ranks of higher education policy justified the strong presence of the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg. More specifically, it was deemed a way to limit the strong influence of FPOs and NPOs on the university and the CSPs it offers, thus ensuring its autonomy. The data from the case study university indicate a dual external control in line with Hüther’s (2010) study. Double external control states that influence is exercised by the responsible ministry and the university council (Hüther, 2010, p. 443). In the case of the DHBW, the responsible Ministry of Science seems to make ample use of its influence, as the interviewees’ descriptions indicate. Further, the alternating chairmanship of the supervisory board seems to ensure that the influence on strategic decisions of the case study university remains secured. In addition, our data show that during the period in which the minister holds the chair, the responsible department in the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg acts as an office for the chair and, for example, actively shapes the agenda for the meetings of the supervisory board of the case study university. Another aspect of strong state control and thus regulation can be seen in the following fact. Concerning the transformation of universities into competitive actors, the New Public Management (NPM) model suggests constituting a basis for reducing detailed state control and replacing it with instruments such as target agreements and long-term contracts (Krücken, 2017; Krücken & Meier, 2006). The findings of our case study show that it is also an object of such instruments. This can be seen, for example, in instruments such as the higher education financing contract (Hochschulfinanzierungsvertrag) between the government of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and the case study university. In it, the case study university, in cooperation with

6.1 Discussion of Findings

265

the FPOs and NPOs, guarantees to attempt to maintain a specific capacity of CSPs for a period of five years. In return, the case study university receives full funding from the government of Baden-Wuerttemberg, without any deductions, as the documents and interviews with representatives from the university and FPOs and NPOs suggest. Consequently, the government of Baden-Wuerttemberg exerts a strong indirect influence on the case study university through the steering instrument of a funding contract with the university. Our data show that the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg actively uses its state steering instruments (Hüther, 2010, p. 444). However, Hüther’s (2010) study states that there is no uniform organization model in the sense of the NPM approach to be found in German higher education (Hüther, 2010). Rather, the context of federalism has elicited significant variations. In general, the federal states have exploited their freedom to design “their” higher education institutions. Baden-Wuerttemberg, for example, has secured its opportunities to exert influence on its higher education institutions through dual external control (competent department for the case study university within the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg and alternating chair of the case study supervisory board chaired by the Minister of Science) in the case of the DHBW. The strong state regulation was also evident in the descriptions of the persons interviewed across almost all stakeholder groups (professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, representatives of higher education policy). Only for the interviewed group of students, this was not an issue. Based on the evidence from our case study university, two main conclusions can be drawn that argue for strong state regulation: the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (represented by the Ministry of Science and the science minister) makes active use of its right to shape a university and its structures. This is evident in the data from the university under study. On the one hand, the state sees itself as an active guardian of university autonomy with its presence on the supervisory board. On the other hand, it exerts influence on the case study university and the FPOs and NPOs cooperating with it through a financing contract, namely by agreeing to maintain a specific capacity for CSPs over a defined period. In conclusion, our case study points towards the fact that the state’s strong position will be maintained, as Hüther (2010, p. 444) found. We, therefore, conclude that a high degree of state regulation remains in the case of CSPs at our case study university and thus its third mission governance. We accordingly rate the state regulation dimension of CSPs as high.

266

6

Discussion of Results

Aspects of stakeholder guidance (SG) In this subsection, we will discuss other significant stakeholder groups which are apart from the key stakeholder group of professors. Here, the stakeholder guidance dimension refers to additional stakeholder groups besides university professors. The role of FPO and NPO representatives We would like to focus the discussion on one salient finding from the case study university. The representatives of the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs play a significant role for three reasons: first, FPOs and NPOs provide the number of study places for CSPs (as detailed in Chapter 5). The number of study places is matched with the available capacity at a campus. In providing places for CSPs, FPOs and NPOs also pay students a salary during the term of a CSP. These aspects are regulated in a contract between FPOs and NPOs and students in a CSP (see Chapter 5). Consequently, the FPOs and NPOs fulfill a vital gatekeeping function for CSPs because no CSP would be implemented without a provided study place filled by a student. The FPOs and NPOs formally receive membership in the case study university via their provision of a study place in a CSP. Consequently, they change from being an external stakeholder group to an internal stakeholder group. Second, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs, in collaboration with the case study university through the program coordinators, implement the CSPs. In doing so, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs are responsible for conducting the practical phases of the CSPs at their business premises. The CSPs are subject to a three-month rhythm. Consequently, every three months, students move from the practical training phase in the company to the academic training phase at a campus and vice versa. In total, the practical phase of a CSP takes a year and a half, and its design and implementation are the responsibility of the FPOs and NPOs. Consequently, FPOs and NPOs have ample opportunity to influence the implementation of CSPs structurally, organizationally, and in terms of content. Third, through the obtained membership, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs have access to the committees (governance bodies) of the case study university. Our data show that the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs were represented in almost all relevant bodies of the case study university. Our interviews revealed that they made active use of their membership, both at the level of implementing the CSPs and at the strategic level of the case study university regarding the design of the CSP offerings. Regarding the strategic orientation of

6.1 Discussion of Findings

267

the case study university and its study programs, it became particularly apparent that the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs on the supervisory board (at the central level of the case study university) exerted their influence strongly and strove to offer CSPs as uniformly as possible. Furthermore, they showed a high level of engagement at the campus level in the local campus university councils, where they advocated for providing specific CSPs (for example, in the field of Industry 4.0 or nursing sciences) to raise the profile of a campus. The stakeholder guidance dimension means by definition that stakeholders are actors influencing the guidance of universities. Due to the influence exercised by FPO and NPO representatives through formal representation in governance bodies of the university and the CSPs, the FPO and NPO representatives are potent stakeholders in CSP governance. Especially through their influence on study places and practical phases of the study programs, they exert power on third mission governance. Regarding the strength and salience of stakeholder guidance, it can be said in light of our evidence that without the strong, active participation of FPOs and NPOs, the concept of CSPs and its underlying (third mission) governance would not work and consequently would not exist. The role of the state as a stakeholder This subsection revisits the role of the state, represented by the state of BadenWuerttemberg and its Ministry of Science and the Minister and representatives stemming from the regional higher education policy, and discusses it with a view to stakeholder guidance. On the one hand, there is the aspect of the chairmanship of the supervisory board at the case study university by the minister and the associated agenda setting in this steering committee. Our data show that the work in the supervisory board of the university is firmly aimed at ensuring that the case study university fulfills its mission of CSPs and thereby complements the higher education system of Baden-Wuerttemberg. This also means that none of the offerings of the DHBW must compete or overlap with offerings of the universities of applied sciences or even universities. The interviews with the program coordinators made clear that the university’s strict orientation towards the CSPs’ singular purpose has two sides: first, the program coordinators can identify strongly with the case study university and the CSPs. They work in close cooperation with representatives of FPOs and NPOs for a local business community and the region. Hence, a strong identification with the role and tasks was evident in the interviews. Second, however, the professional role as a professor can suffer significantly because of the limited opportunities to conduct research in this context. Program coordinators are already very busy with the organizational, content-related,

268

6

Discussion of Results

and didactic coordination and implementation of CSPs. This observation is also evident in remarks made by representatives of FPOs and NPOs and representatives of higher education policy, who suggested that this type of higher education institution (the case study university) and study program (CSP) would require exceptionally qualified professors. On the other hand, there is the aspect of managing the case study university and its capacity for study places through funding for courses of CSPs and their expansion for specific subject areas. Our data show that the state exerts influence on the study place capacities promised in the university funding contract. This is carried out in two ways: first, the management of the case study university is asked to report annually on the utilization of the CSP study place capacities. The presentation involves breaking down the data by subject (for example, business administration—management in commerce) and the associated industry sectors (for example, retail industry and its local business community). If the utilization rate does not meet expectations, the university management is supposed to propose appropriate measures to counteract this (for example, more advertising among FPOs and NPOs for certain CSPs) or provide reasons for the non-occurrence of predicted expectations (for example, the poor economic situation in an industry sector) in the report to the department in the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg. Second, detailed justifications and supporting documentation are required for the new CSPs to be granted funding from the university funding contract to establish another course in a CSP. The process involves the committees of the case study university (on the campus and central levels) and requires agreement with the department responsible for the case study university in the Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg. Interviewees from the stakeholder groups of professors in a university management role of representatives from the ranks of higher education policy characterized those ways of exerting influence as very time intensive and detaildriven. The dual influence of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg consists of being a controller on the one hand (see discussion on state regulation) and a stakeholder (see current discussion above) on the other. Thereby the exertion of strategic influence takes place in the operation and delivery of CSPs, thus exerting power. Consequently, the state can be attributed with a powerful influence in its role as a stakeholder—at least with a focus on the strategic level of CSPs and thus the third mission governance.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

269

The role of students as a stakeholder group Chapter 5 presented the dual role of students in CSPs in great detail. On the one hand, they are employees in a FPO or NPO. On the other hand, they are enrolled as regular students in a particular CSP at a campus of the case study university. Consequently, the students are also formal members of the case study university and thus have the opportunity to exert their influence on the governance of the case study university according to the stakeholder guidance definition. Two aspects of our study will illustrate the effects of students in CSPs on their governance. First, regular students are the subject of the curricula of CSPs and experience university teaching, both on a university campus at one of the business premises of a FPO or NPO. The interviews with students, FPOs and NPOs, and program coordinators have shown that current topics with a clear relation to professional fields are of vital importance to the students. If teaching does not meet their expectations, they actively use the feedback possibilities within the quality management system of the case study university. On the one hand, the students report to their practice supervisor in their FPO or NPO. The representatives of the FPOs and NPOs then take the feedback to the committees of the case study university and directly to their program coordinator. On the other hand, the students take the feedback to their student representatives. The student representatives are members of the committees in the case study university and put any quality problems with teaching on the agenda there. This was evident, for example, in the student interviews on an initiative for better pay for part-time lecturers in CSPs to guarantee better quality teaching. Second, it was evident that students chose a CSP consciously. This emerged from the interviews with the group of students. The strong practical orientation of the study program was particularly important to the students, as was the fact that the bachelor’s degree in a CSP offers connectivity to a master’s degree. Consequently, the FPOs and NPOs and the case study university (represented by the professors) have a strong obligation to design and maintain attractive framework conditions in CSPs that motivate prospective students to choose such an academic qualification. Therefore, it can be concluded that students influence the governance of CSPs, and thus the third mission through first through the decision for a study place and then through feedback during their studies. Hence they exercise power. However, their stakeholder guidance is less pronounced compared to that of the representatives of FPOs and NPOs and the state. Overall, it can be concluded that at the case study university, other stakeholder groups besides that of professors play a significant role in the governance of the university, and thus in CSPs and the governance of the third mission. Therefore,

270

6

Discussion of Results

it can be said that the dimension of stakeholder guidance (SG) is strongly pronounced and has a significant influence on the governance of CSPs and, thus, the third mission. We, therefore, rate the stakeholder guidance dimension of CSPs as high. Aspects of competition (C) We suggest that the dimension of competition in CSPs has been found in the following aspects. First, the demand for a qualification offer via a CSP is located within the FPOs and NPOs and their acting stakeholders. The need for particular qualification offers via CSPs is reflected in the requests for specific topics, i.e., teaching content. This is oriented chiefly towards training areas such as business administration and engineering and is reflected in establishing places for CSPs in the FPOs and NPOs. As discussed in Chapter 5, this also represents an investment decision for the FPOs and NPOs, as they hire the students and pay them a salary during the term of a CSP at their facility. The decision of FPOs and NPOs for certain CSP offers is primarily evident at our case study university for relevant application-related subjects such as business and engineering. Second, the aspect of offering and delivering a qualification offer via a CSP is to be found within the case study university and its acting program coordinators. The market for CSPs is reflected in the wide and highly differentiated range of CSPs offered at the case study university. There, CSPs are offered in business, engineering, social work, and health sciences. In particular, the fields of business and engineering are highly differentiated and oriented towards the industry and its sectors. The high range of CSPs offered is evidenced at the case study university by the high number of fields of study in the business administration program, for example. The areas of study are geared towards industries such as banking, trade, or services. However, the engineering field also shows a strong industry orientation of its CSPs, e.g., in automotive, aerospace, or mechanical engineering. The third aspect lies in between two points made by the group of students. On the one hand, they ask about attractive career options in FPOs and NPOs and see this in the CSPs offered by FPOs and NPOs. On the other hand, they ask for a practical academic qualification, which they see in CSPs and which also allows them to pursue a master’s degree. The interviews with students confirmed both of those points. Consequently, concerning the market for CSPs, it can be said that CSPs must be sufficiently attractive to draw a sufficient number of students. The responsibility for an attractive design of CSPs lies with the case study university as well as with the FPOs and NPOs. The aspects mentioned above support the finding that the mix of demand for CSPs (by the profit and nonprofit organizations) and offerings of CSPs (created by

6.1 Discussion of Findings

271

the university) form a distinct quasi-market for CSPs. In between are the students of CSPs as a target group, for whom an attractive range of CSPs has been created. Further, we found that the quasi-market for CSPs takes place in a state-regulated context. The state-regulated context has two sides for CSPs. First, through higher education legislation, the state (represented by Baden-Wuerttemberg and its state government) assigns certain competencies to the case study university and the FPOs and NPOs for the demand and delivery of education with CSPs. Second, the state (represented by the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg and its Ministry of Science) provides the case study university with funding to provide and sustain a specific capacity of study places for CSPs. Therefore, in the context of our study, we can conclude that CSPs are implemented in a state-regulated quasi-market. In this context, the stakeholder groups of FPOs and NPOs and the professors from the case study university have been assigned specific competencies by law. Furthermore, the case study university receives a budget from the state to provide the capacities of cooperative study places qualitatively (number of study programs) and quantitatively (number of study places) for this quasi-market. We found that the CSPs at the case study university are carried out in a state-regulated market (at the level of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg). Consequently, we classify the dimension of competition (C) as moderately pronounced (medium). Aspects of academic self-governance (ASG) dimension Academic self-governance addresses the academic community’s role within the higher education system and refers to traditional professional communities. In the case study university, the academic communities are represented by business, engineering, social work, and health sciences. The academic communities are organized in cross-campus departments and relate to the interests of FPOs and NPOs in developing and maintaining CSP curricula. Formally, the involvement of the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs takes place in the university’s expert commissions and the respective subcommittees. There, the curricula and course offerings of CSPs are negotiated between professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs and put into an officially binding form. We found that the case study university is dominated by the subject communities of business and engineering. This is because most courses are offered in this area, the majority of students are enrolled there, and most professors represent these subjects. Further, we found that our results align with the general picture of application-oriented universities, where application-oriented subjects—above all, business and engineering—dominate the academic profile. This is consequently also reflected in the academic communities.

272

6

Discussion of Results

The professional communities at the university are present in campus schools at different locations in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The campus schools represent local members of the respective department (for example, business or engineering) and establish spatial proximity to the business premises of the FPOs and NPOs for the implementation of CSPs. First and foremost, the professional communities are represented by program coordinators and their assigned CPS courses at the micro level. Behind a course of a CSP, in turn, stands an academic subject such as social work or engineering and related FPOs and NPOs. From the interviews with representatives of the group of professors and FPOs and NPOs, it emerges that the implementation of CSPs mainly characterizes the work of professors. The implementation work of CSPs consists primarily in the coordination of organizational, didactic, and teaching content issues related to CSPs. Based on a framework curriculum for a CSP, the program coordinators can make adjustments in didactics and teaching content, but also in organizational matters. This is accomplished in consultation with the cooperating representatives of FPOs and NPOs. The case study university provides evidence that in CSPs, the academic communities addressed serve first and foremost the function of developing, delivering, and maintaining teaching content according to academic quality standards in their respective fields of expertise. The course content is developed in line with the demand from FPOs and NPOs and harmonized with the scientific requirements of a subject. We found that this professional role is performed at the case study university by the professors. More specifically, by the program coordinators and professors who have taken responsibility for designing specific modules of CSPs. This means that the relevant sovereign task of developing and maintaining curricula is in the hands of professors. However, with the restriction that the development and maintenance of the curricula and teaching content of CSPs are not subject to scientific interests alone, the practical interests of FPOs and NPOs have to be taken into account. Therefore, we conclude that academic self-governance is subject to adaptation (to the requirements of CSPs). Thus, a reduction of academic self-governance has taken place in favor of the development and delivery of CSPs. However, we also found that core academic responsibilities such as curriculum development and implementation remain firmly in the hands of professors in CSPs. Accordingly, professors in CSPs exercise their power in matters of didactics, teaching content, and organization of CSPs and, to some extent, share it with representatives of FPOs and NPOs. The exercise of power in the context of academic self-governance relates to issues of developing CSPs (meso level) and to issues of implementing CSPs (micro level).

6.1 Discussion of Findings

273

For the case of CSPs at the case study university, we conclude that aspects of academic self-governance have been directed toward the delivery of CSPs and thus the third mission. Seen from the prospect of a traditional understanding of higher education, however, the aspect of academic self-governance has been strongly relegated in favor of strengthening other elements. As a result, we rate academic self-governance (ASG) as low because the ASG is not the sole subject of academic interests. Aspects of the dimension of managerial self-governance (MSG) The case study findings show a strengthened hierarchy and a scaled-down approach to academic self-governance. At the case study university, the strengthened role of managerial self-governance is reflected in the specific design of the hierarchy in relation to the concerns of the CSPs. This became evident in our study in the specific orientation of top-management offices (for example, president, vice-president, or representatives of the professors and FPOs and NPOs), and middle management (head of campus, head of school) at the meso level of the case study university. Further evidence was found at the micro level in the specific function of the program coordinator. In addition, these offices and functions were assumed and exercised by professors exclusively. At the micro level of the university, a professor in the function of a program coordinator assumes responsibility for a respective CSP and its cohort of students and associated FPOs and NPOs. The existence of the position of program coordinator indicates a change in managerial self-governance toward the micro level of the case study university. The part has a strong administrative character and is essential for the functioning of CSPs. The job profile of a program coordinator, characterized by the task triad of organization, teaching, and didactics, represents an increase in managerial self-governance. The program coordinator is firmly integrated into the university hierarchy and is obligated to report to the higher-level university management and university committees. Nevertheless, a program coordinator has decision-making competence which is highly relevant to the case study university and its CSPs. Therefore, the program coordinator is a higher education manager below middle management and thus can be classified as an extension of the dimension of managerial self-governance. Further, we found two general primary hierarchical levels at the meso-level of the case study university. First, the university management at the campus level of the case study university consists of campus executive boards. These, in turn, generally consist of a campus head and one or several heads of campus schools (for example, business administration, engineering, or social work) and the head of the campus

274

6

Discussion of Results

administration. Following the definition of managerial self-governance, these governance bodies represent the middle management of the case study university, whose function would be comparable to a dean’s office at other types of higher education institutions. The middle management of the case study university is accountable to the top management (presidium or president’s office at the central level). From the interviews with representatives from this group, it appears that the job profile is about coordinating the campus and representing the case study university in the specific local or regional business community. The job is also about embedding campus development into the university’s overall strategy while building a campus profile through the CSPs offered. Overall, the descriptions from the interviews gave the impression of a campus representative working for a local business community and its region. Second, the university management of the DHBW features at the central level (the presidium or President’s Office) the executive committee with the president, vicepresident, chancellor, and representatives of the professorate and FPOs and NPOs. Following the definition of managerial self-governance, this governance body represents the top management, which in terms of function would be comparable to a rectorate at other types of universities. From the interviews with representatives from this group, it is clear that the job profile is about representing the case study university in its entirety at the level of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and within the national higher education system. Furthermore, it is about harmonizing the multitude of campus interests and steering them in a strategic direction. Especially the task of strategic direction setting has been described as very challenging because, according to the interviewees, the university tends to develop local principalities. They can manifest themselves in the considerable differentiation of CSPs in the academic disciplines of business, engineering, social work, and health sciences. In doing so, the stakeholders on campus (most prominently the program coordinators) are strongly supported by their local FPO and NPO representatives to shape campusspecific study program offerings. This mutually supportive relationship (program coordinator—FPO and NPO representative) is conditioned by the direct interaction of supply (CSP at the university) and demand (CSP as a needed qualification measure at the FPO and NPO). This is institutionalized at the micro level of the CSPs through the mutually supportive relationship mentioned at the beginning in the context of the case study university and forms the origin of the power dynamics of CSPs. Consequently, the interviewees from the ranks of top-university management, FPOs and NPOs from top-level committees, as well as ministry delegates, described this micro-level anchored relationship as a severe disadvantage of the university’s structure as a multi-campus university.

6.1 Discussion of Findings

275

Concluding, the leadership of the case study university is formed out of these two levels of the university hierarchy (as described above) and exercised by the presidium (top-level) and campus leadership (campus level). Compared to other types of higher education institutions, the structure of university leadership differs in our study. We found that it follows the layout of the case study university as a multi-campus university and the specific requirements of the CSPs. We interpret the differently oriented structure of university leadership at our case study university as an internal differentiation of managerial self-governance. However, the function laid out in the definition remains the same. The top management has the power to exert influence on the overall strategic direction of the case study university. The middle management can influence its local community and region to shape a campus profile through a specific portfolio of CSPs. Further, managerial self-governance is extended below the middle management: the program coordinator has the power as a higher education manager at the microlevel to implement CSPs in cooperation with FPOs and NPOs and thus, a strong influence on the quality of the CSPs and hence the profile of the case study university. We, therefore, consider the dimension of managerial self-governance as strengthened and thus to be highly pronounced. We accordingly rate the dimension of managerial self-governance in CSPs as high. Finally, we summarize the classifications derived from the preceding discussion for each dimension of the governance equalizer as applied to the case of CSPs in a table (see Table 6.1). To classify CSPs per governance equalizer dimension, it was feasible to use a low-medium–high scale. The applied scale underlies the tabular presentation (see Table 6.1). It includes “low” (scale points: 0–3) as a designation for the presence of a low expression of a certain logic or presence of a governance mechanism and “high” (scale points: 7–10) for a strong expression of a dominant governance mechanism and the associated logic. This type of presentation visualizes the findings discussed, but it does not reproduce an exact measurement in the quantitative measurement series. Based on our discussion, the following picture emerges (see Table 6.1):

State Regulation (SR) Stakeholder Guidance (SG)

Competition (C)

Academic SelfGovernance (ASG)

Managerial SelfGovernance (MSG)

6

Note. Author’s representation based on data analysis—following de Boer, Schimank & Enders (2007).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Tab. 6.1 Governance equalizer applied to the case study university and its CSPs

276 Discussion of Results

6.1 Discussion of Findings

277

Our case of CSPs shows a high expression for the dimension of stakeholder guidance, indicating that for the governance of CSPs, and thus the third mission, stakeholders play a salient role. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the dimension of state regulation is almost equally high. This indicates that the state (represented by the Ministry of Science of Baden-Wuerttemberg) seems to have a high degree of influence on CSPs, and thus the third mission, through its competence in regulation and funding. In addition, the competition dimension is rated as medium, reflecting the aspect of a state-regulated quasi-market of CSPs highlighted in the discussion. In the middle range, the dimension of managerial self-governance is also strongly expressed. This indicates that university management functions have been strengthened for the governance of CSPs, and thus the third mission. We discussed this for our case study using the position of the program coordinator and the alignment of the offices of campus leadership and university leadership. For the functioning of CSPs and thus the third mission, these have been aligned to its needs. The dimension of academic self-governance was rated as low. The previous discussion also showed this: the traditional role of university professors in CSPs serves the academic design and delivery of the study programs and the third mission. Concerning the classic shape of the governance equalizer, we can ascertain several points: the findings show a strengthened stakeholder guidance dimension; the competition dimension has been moderately strengthened in the sense of a quasi-market; the managerial self-governance dimension has been strengthened to be able to guarantee strategic capability; the academic self-governance dimension has been pushed back but remains important. Consequently, our findings in four out of five dimensions suggest a similar picture as already characterized by de Boer, Schimank & Enders (2007). However, our findings also indicate that the strong influence of the state (state regulation dimension) has largely remained intact (de Boer, Enders, & Schimank, 2007; Hüther, 2010).

6.1.3

Influence of Stakeholders on the Content of CSPs

This subsection considers the findings with respect to the influence of stakeholders on the content of CSPs. Influence of professors on the content of CSPs In our study, we found that professors have the most significant influence on the content of CSPs. At the case study university, the stakeholder group of professors refers to the program coordinator and university management functions. In interaction, both are responsible for the development and implementation of curricula

278

6

Discussion of Results

of CSPs. Their performance of tasks takes place in the context of the transferred sovereign rights (via the State Higher Education Act of Baden-Wuerttemberg). Further, we found that the sovereign tasks of professors of CSPs are specifically tailored to the requirements of this type of study program. At the operational level, the professors’ influence relates to the typical academic tasks of organization, didactics, and teaching of CSPs. At the strategic level, their duties are focused on issues related to the design of curricula in terms of subject matter and the demand for relevant topics. In the self-attribution from the interviews with professors (primarily program coordinators), we found that CSPs take place within a strong regulatory framework, which nevertheless holds a high degree of design flexibility for implementing CSPs. Therefore, it can be concluded that the influence of professors on the content of CSPs is heavy and gives the study programs their individual academic profiles. Influence of students on the content of CSPs Our study showed that, at first glance, the stakeholder group of students has little influence on the content of CSPs. A second glance, however, proves the opposite to be true. On the one hand, this is reflected in the demand for practicerelevant teaching content, which manifests in specific study program offerings. In addition, the students of CSPs actively provide feedback on the teaching quality in the context of the university’s quality management system, which can have a positive effect on the content taught. Thus, it can be concluded that students influence the content of CSPs in two dimensions: first, via the demand for a particular course offering in a CSP. Second, via direct feedback on the teaching quality in a CSP as part of the quality management of the case study university. In light of the discussion, we conclude that there is little (to medium) student influence on the content of CSPs. Influence of FPO and NPO representatives on the content of CSPs In our study, we found that profit and non-profit representatives, along with professors, have the greatest influence on the content of CSPs. Their influence is reflected in their responsibility for the content of the practical phases of CSPs. This is done in consultation with the program coordinators at the case study university based on the curriculum for a specific CSP but still leaves enough room to set content priorities for the training at the operating site. Furthermore, our study has shown that a practice supervisor is responsible for the students during the training phase in many cases. The supervisor accompanies and supervises the students during the practical phase of their CSP and sets learning and training

6.1 Discussion of Findings

279

goals with them. In addition, the supervisor collects feedback from students on their experiences with teaching quality and shares the feedback with a program coordinator. Further, at the strategic level, representatives of FPOs and NPOs also influence the content of CSPs through demand for relevant topics reflected in a particular course offering or curriculum for a CSP. In conclusion, the representatives of FPOs and NPOs are highly influential on the content of CSPs. They also impact the strategic relevance and operational orientation of CSPs via demand for teaching content and feedback on teaching quality. Influence of government and higher education policy representatives on the content of CSPs Our study found that government and higher education policy representatives have no direct influence on the content of CSPs. However, there is evidence for their indirect impact. In our study, we found two aspects that might indicate content influence on CSPs. First, when filling a professorship for a CSP (as described in Chapter 5), the approval of the responsible Ministry of Science Baden-Wuerttemberg is required. A professorship for a CSP is advertised with a specific professional profile. Acceptance or rejection by the division responsible in the Ministry of Science can influence a subject and the teaching content behind it from the perspective of higher education policy, which also applies to CSPs. Second, influence by the state (represented by the Ministry of Science and the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg) on the contents of CSPs can take place through the funding of the case study university. Our study showed the example of creating additional study places in health sciences, where the state (Baden-Wuerttemberg) provided funding for establishing additional study place capacities. Thus, the provision of additional funding for the case study university was linked to aspects of content as well as demand. The indirect influence depends on the context, and, therefore, we conclude that the effect on the content of CSPs is low to medium. We thus deduce that the influence of government representatives and higher education policymakers on the content of CSPs is low. Finally, we summarize the classifications emerging from the preceding discussion (see Table 6.2). To classify the stakeholder’s influence on the content of CSPs, it was feasible to use a low-medium–high scale. The applied scale underlies the tabular presentation (see Table 6.2). The indicator “low” (scale points: 0–3) designates the presence of a low influence on the content of CSPs, “high” (scale points: 7–10) stands for a strong influence on the content of CSPs. This type of presentation visualizes our findings, but it does not reproduce an exact measurement in the sense of a quantitative measurement series. Based on our discussion, the following picture emerges (see Table 6.2):

Professors

Students

Profit- and non-profit organization representatives

Government and higher education policy representatives

6

Note. Author’s representation based on data analysis.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Tab. 6.2 Influence of stakeholder groups on the content of CSPs

280 Discussion of Results

6.1 Discussion of Findings

281

Based on the discussion and the visual representation of the results in Table 6.2, the following picture emerges in relation to stakeholders’ influence on CSPs. First, the group of professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs shows a high degree of influence on the content of CSPs. This is associated with an advantage for the professors since qua office they stand for the academic quality of the CSPs. Second, the group of students ranks in the middle in terms of influence on the content of CSPs. The discussion has shown that students play an important role as feedback providers and exert influence through this. Third, the group of representatives from higher education policy and the government is considered to have a low impact on the content of CSPs. The discussion revealed that they can only exert influence indirectly by shaping the framework conditions.

6.1.4

Influence of Stakeholders on Third Mission Governance

The following subsection discusses the overall findings of our study dealing with the stakeholders’ influence on third mission governance in the case of CSPs. The discussion revealed that the third mission of the case study university is to supply the regional economy of Baden-Wuerttemberg with graduates stemming from CSPs. To achieve this goal, it became evident that the key stakeholders, namely professors, representatives of profit and non-profit companies, students, and representatives of government and higher education policy, play an essential role for the case study university. Without these key stakeholders and their case-specific interactions, the CSPs and thus the third mission of the case study university would not work. The core of the third mission lies in the development, implementation, and delivery of CSPs. Therefore, it was obvious to interpret the DHBW as an empirical example of a “stakeholder university,” as Bleiklie & Kogan (2007) described. The stakeholder university, according to Bleiklie and Kogan (2007), can be characterized by shared responsibilities among stakeholder groups for the functioning of the contemporary university, which is also a lesson learned from the discussion in this chapter. Concerning the CSPs, the voice of the stakeholder group of professors is one among many other internal and external stakeholder groups in the case study university. However, professors are still granted the privilege of academic freedom, which is reflected in the development and maintenance connected to CSPs. Consequently, that makes the professors still a very influential stakeholder group for the functioning of CSPs. Other stakeholder groups are almost equally significant for CSPs. First, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs request specific qualification profiles reflected in the demand for relevant teaching content, which is the university then offers in suitable CSPs. Yet, they are also responsible for

282

6

Discussion of Results

the success of the practical part of the training through CSPs. Thus, we conclude that the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs has very high importance for the governance of CSPs, both operationally and strategically. Second, there is the stakeholder group of students who, on the one hand, are looking for an attractive range of courses with relevant career prospects in the industry (the FPOs and NPOs). Consequently, students perceive CSPs as an attractive career option. On the other hand, it is also important to offer CSPs that enable students to pursue a master’s degree. Both aspects make students a significant demand driver of CSPs and thus the third mission. Third, the stakeholder group of government and higher education policy representatives provide a framework of order and action for CSPs. On the one hand, the framework includes the legal framework in the shape of higher education legislation and, on the other hand, the funding of the case study university through the state budget (of Baden-Wuerttemberg). Further, our discussion revealed that the case study university has a strengthened steering core to strategically position CSPs within the higher education system (of Baden-Wuerttemberg). Our study also showed the function of the program coordinator and its close coupling to a strict top-down regime in university management reflected the strengthened steering core. In addition, we found that the CSPs of the case study university complement the higher education system of Baden-Wuerttemberg and, in the context of the regional innovation system, provide the regional economy of Baden-Wuerttemberg with appropriate graduates stemming from CSPs. The two characteristics of a strengthened steering core and a strategic orientation are also found in Bleiklie and Kogan (2007) as further characteristics of a stakeholder university. Thus, it can be concluded that third mission governance is about stakeholders and their specific contributions. Consequently, our case study university can be seen as another empirical example of a stakeholder university, or more precisely, a national variation (Germany) at a regional level (Baden-Wuerttemberg). Thus, from an overarching perspective, it can be postulated that Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory is highly relevant for third mission governance because it is the stakeholder groups—which are qua definition “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46)—and their specific interactions and contributions that shape the third mission and its governance. This was impressively demonstrated by the empirical case of CSPs for a teaching-oriented third mission. Based on the third mission governance topics identified in Chapter 5 and their discussion in Chapter 6, we depict the influence of stakeholders on the governance of CSPs, which stands for third mission governance, in an illustration (see

6.1 Discussion of Findings

283

Figure 6.2). Overall, the figure also illustrates the aspects of the commercialization of the teaching function from the perspective of the third mission. The notion of commercializing teaching addresses all the teaching-related activities of the case study university concerning CSPs. All this aims at a socio-economic purpose which lies in the qualification of human capital through CSPs at the bachelor level, which formed the core intention of the third mission in our study. Our illustration of third mission governance consists of four dimensions in which stakeholder groups influence the governance of the third mission through activities in their respective core areas. Consequently, we characterized the dimensions per stakeholder group based on their key activities (stemming from the analysis results presented in Chapter 5). The key activities in each designated dimension significantly influence the governance of CSPs, and thus third mission governance. Further, the four dimensions should not be viewed in isolation as they are interrelated and mutually dependent. Figure 6.2 summarizes the dimensions of influence on third mission governance in the case of CSPs in a task-oriented manner (see Figure 6.2).

• • •

•

Offer of study programs (academic, didacc, organizaonal) Implementaon of study programs (academic, didacc, organizaonal) Commiee membership

• •

Demand for study programs (content, number of study places) Implementaon of study programs (co-execuon) University- and commiee membership

Jointly shape

Third Mission Governance

Jointly shape

• • • •

Provision of regulatory framework Provision of university funding Legal and technical supervision Commiee membership

• • •

Demand for study programs (career opons) Feedback on quality issues Commiee membership

Note. Author’s representation based on data analysis.

Fig. 6.2 Dimensions of third mission governance in the case of CSPs

284

6

Discussion of Results

Below, we describe the dimension and key activities of third mission governance per stakeholder group of Figure 6.2 in more detail: First, the stakeholder group of professors shapes third mission governance through their contributions in the academic core area. The range of activities covers academic topics, didactic issues, and organizational questions related to CSPs. These include issues of CSP development, maintenance, and implementation. We conclude that these types of activities significantly impact the design of CSP offerings, and thus, generally speaking, the design of the supply side. The concerns of the professor stakeholder group transmitted through their strong presence in the university’s committee system. Second, the stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives primarily serves the demand function, which entails the two aspects qualification requirements for future employees (content-related aspects) and number of study places available for the implementation of the qualification measure (capacities, number of study places). In addition, the FPOs and NPOs implement CSPs in joint responsibility with the university and thus gain a fully-fledged membership at the university in return. This gives them structurally binding access to the university’s committees. In this respect, FPOs and NPOs have structurally binding access to the university’s committees, enabling them to place their issues on the agenda. Third, the student stakeholder group primarily has a strong interest in attractive career options with regard to CSPs. This is reflected first and foremost in the demand for highly attractive courses of study in the field of CSPs. In addition, if students are enrolled in a CSP, they provide valuable feedback on the quality they experience in a program and contribute their perspective to university committees. Finally, it can also be said that the student stakeholder group is a kind of user or customer of CSPs, as evidenced by their hybrid status: namely, being employees of a FPO or NPO on the one hand; and being a regularly enrolled student at the university on the other. Fourth, the stakeholder group of representatives from government and higher education policy (regional level of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg) is concerned with shaping the regulatory and financial framework for CSPs. Thus, this stakeholder group is engaged with the design of third mission activities and the underlying governance system. As a result, the core stakeholders of CSPs come together: the supply side (university) and the demand side (FPOs and NPOs) on a quasi-market of CSPs. In addition, the government secures its influence on the governance of CSPs through participation in committee work of the university and its supervisory function via the responsible ministry. Finally, we present our empirical findings on stakeholder influence on third mission governance in a diagram. The classification in the chart is based on the insights and lessons learned from the preceding discussion. We wanted to

6.1 Discussion of Findings

285

micro

Organizaonal level

meso

visualize stakeholder influence on third mission governance as sourced from the previous section and its subsections. The diagram (see Figure 6.3) depicts two dimensions in a coordinate system. On the x-axis, the degree of influence is shown using a low-medium–high scale. To better understand the extent of the influence, using the scale for a simplified presentation was appropriate, where “low” indicates a position to exert little and “high” a dominant position to exert influence. The y-axis shows the two main levels of our case study university, the micro level (program level) and the meso level (institutional level). The meso level refers to the central level of the organization, where strategic decisions on CSPs are made. The micro level refers to the decentralized level of the organization where CSPs are carried out at a campus of the case study university. Further, we recall that we included a total of four stakeholder groups and their views in our study. They are the group of professors (university), the group of students (university-industry), the group of FPOs and NPOs (industry), and the group of government higher education policy representatives (government/state). The four stakeholder groups form points on each of the levels within the coordinate system of the diagram. Their placement then stands for a ranking on the scale described above.

Government and Higher Educaon Policy Representaves

low

medium

high

Degree of influence

For-Profit- and Non-Profit Organizaon Representaves Professors Students

Note. Author’s representation based on data analysis.

Fig. 6.3 Degree of stakeholders’ influence on CSP governance

286

6

Discussion of Results

Below we describe the classification of stakeholders as illustrated in Figure 6.3 and their degrees of influence on third mission governance (in the case of CSPs): First, we consider the degree of influence on third mission governance per stakeholder group at the micro level (program level) of our case study university. Based on our findings, the stakeholder group of government representatives and higher education policymakers can be ascribed a low level of influence (see Figure 6.3, bottom quadrant left side). A medium to high influence can be attributed to the groups of FPOs and NPOs and students. However, the FPOs and NPOs have priority as providers of a study place and contractors. Finally, a high degree of influence can be attributed to the group of professors (see Figure 6.3, bottom quadrant right side). Second, we consider the degree of influence on third mission governance per stakeholder group at the meso level (institutional level) of our case study university. The stakeholder group of students can be assigned a low to medium influence based on our findings (see Figure 6.3, top quadrant left side). A medium to high degree of impact is exerted by the stakeholder groups of FPOs and NPOs and professors. However, we prioritize FPOs and NPOs, as the state has granted them university membership to contribute to the case study university’s strategy (see Figure 6.3, top quadrant right side). Finally, the stakeholder group of government and higher education policy representatives can be attested a very high degree of influence (see Figure 6.3, top quadrant right side).

6.2

Revisiting Research Expectations

This section revisits the three research expectations outlined at the end of Chapter 1. To contextualize reviewing our research expectations, we include the concepts and theories presented in Chapters 2 and 3 and the empirical results of our case study presented in Chapter 5. Revisiting the first research expectation Third mission governance entails two aspects regarding the organization of CSPs as an example of a teaching-oriented third mission. First, we expected partner companies from the industry sector to be involved in implementing CSPs, resulting in two places of learning, namely the campus of the case study university and the business premises of the partner company. Second, we also expected that the CSPs would be carried out in a specific regional context which might be reflected in a variety of regionally dispersed campuses close to the business premises of the partner companies.

6.2 Revisiting Research Expectations

287

Concerning this expectation, the third mission governance concepts—Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000b) and Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998a) in conjunction—might help us to understand the specific structuring of the CSPs as well as the involvement of external stakeholders within these particular study programs. Third mission governance entails that location matters. Consequently, the concept of the Regional Innovation System (RIS; Freeman, 1987, 2009; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1992) might contribute to understanding the organization of the CSPs in their specific regional realities. Both aspects of our first research expectation—namely the involvement of external stakeholders and the strong regional connection—might influence how CSPs are governed. Reviewing our findings, one can confirm that curricula for CSPs are jointly carried out between professors (the program coordinator) and profit and nonprofit organization representatives (for example, HR managers or training officers). The two learning sites where CSPs are conducted, at one of the regionally dispersed campuses of the studied multi-campus university and the regionally located business premises of the collaborating profit and nonprofit organizations, further support this observation. The professor (program coordinator) leads the process whose interactions are influenced by a mixture of partner profit and nonprofit organization (industry) demands, academic self-interest, and campus-related interests. Again, this brings in the aspect that location matters. These interactions result in modified modules for curricula or entirely new study programs (of CSPs) shaped and carried out in a regional reality. Our case study identified a wide range of course offerings of CSPs at the DHBW, indicating a quasi-market for CSPs in various regional realities that depend on the local business community and professors of CSPs interacting. Further, the involvement of profit and nonprofit organizations in implementing CSPs is also evident in our findings. The regularly maintained exchange relationship between program coordinators (professors) and the local partner profit and nonprofit organization representatives to shape and implement a qualification offer through CSPs reflects this. To put it more precisely in our studied case, the structures of the case study university provide a platform to foster a collaborative implementation process of CSPs. The following aspects characterize the participation in the implementation: first, at the micro level, the CSPs are organized in small groups under the responsibility of a program coordinator. Thus, structurally, there is the possibility to adapt the curriculum for just this small group in a CSP to the needs of the partner profit and nonprofit organization. Since training can be provided according to concrete needs, the partner profit and nonprofit organizations are motivated to be involved. One can say that the case study university has a direct link to market activity (reflected in the posed qualification needs from the partner FPOs and NPOs) through the contact person, i.e., the program coordinator. Second, at the meso level

288

6

Discussion of Results

of the case study university, profit and nonprofit organization representatives have the opportunity to participate in the university’s committee work and thereby influence the strategic design of the CSP’s offerings. The local presence of the case study university allows easy access through physical proximity, further encouraging FPOs and NPOs to get involved. The multi-campus university under investigation shows that location and, thus, regional reality play a significant role. The interactions concerning CSPs take place at the various regional campuses serving as a platform for the joint implementation of CSPs. Consequently, our first research expectation has been almost wholly confirmed as the case study university and the CSPs offered are shaped and implemented through profit and nonprofit organizations’ involvement in a regional context. Revisiting the second research expectation We assume that the governance of the CSPs engages external stakeholders with various levels of influence. Thus, we expect that the external stakeholders (industry) are structurally integrated into the case study university to influence the strategic design of CSP offers (meso level). We substantiate this expectation through stakeholder theory which entails that “any group or individuals” might have an impact on the goals of an organization (Freeman, 1984). Consequently, stakeholder theory helps us better understand stakeholder powers and their spheres of influence with respect to CSPs. The CSPs serve to qualify young people for the labor market at an academic level. On the one hand, we assumed the role of professors to be significant in terms of the academic quality of study programs. On the other hand, the external stakeholder group of partner companies (industry) requires well-trained junior staff, which leads to a demand for qualification offers. Consequently, this external stakeholder group determines the areas in which young people are trained as junior staff, depending on the respective need for skilled workers within an industry or sector. Therefore, we assumed that the role of the partner companies as external stakeholders could have a high impact on the areas in which training is provided through CSPs. As a result, this external stakeholder group would strongly influence the strategic direction of the portfolio of CSPs offered at the case study university. Our second research expectation is supported as our study shows that the external stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives is engaged in the governance of CSPs with various levels of influence. These could be identified at two organizational levels of the studied multi-campus university. At the program level (micro level), the representatives of FPOs and NPOs participate in regular meetings of the course of study (and/or field of study) of a CSP to discuss cooperation and the dispatch of students. In these regular meetings, the representatives bring in their concerns on

6.2 Revisiting Research Expectations

289

the implementation and optimization of CSPs. The responsible program coordinator uses this opportunity to gain strategic information to optimize and enhance existing CSP degree offerings. Alternatively, a need for new skill sets may be identified and addressed with a new CSP offering. If the requirements of the FPOs and NPOs are not met in the long term, they have the option in the future to no longer train students in the respective CSP. Conversely, they also have the opportunity to offer the case study university the prospect of sending additional students for a specific new or optimized CSP offering. We can illustrate this in more detail with two significant findings stemming from our case study university. First, the representatives of FPOs and NPOs select students for CSPs for admission. Consequently, student selection for admission reflects a gatekeeper role. Notably, the selection of students for admission outside the competences of the university is rather an exception in the German higher education system. Usually, the selection and admission of students fall under the responsibility of the university. Student selection for admission, of course, requires that partner FPOs and NPOs have established a study place for a specific CSP in their organization and matched it with the available capacity at a campus of the case study university (this is done with a program coordinator as a permanent contact on the university’s side). Consequently, one can say that without study place provision at a FPO or NPO, no CSP offer can be made to students. Subsequently, there is also no option to implement and carry out CSPs, which makes FPOs and NPOs very influential players in the functioning of CSPs. In addition, the findings also entail that through the provision of a study place, a FPO or NPO gains full institutional membership in the case study university. Formally speaking, this transforms FPOs and NPOs from an external to an internal stakeholder group. On the one hand, the university membership status shows the FPOs’ and NPOs’ attributed importance as a significant stakeholder group of CSPs. On the other hand, their university membership status demonstrates a high level of commitment to the implementation of CSPs for both sides, the case study university and the profit and nonprofit organization. At the institutional level of the case study university (meso level), representatives of the FPOs and NPOs are represented in the committees and steering bodies with a certain number of seats, combined with voting rights. This ensures their influence on the establishment and cancellation of CSPs and decisions about personnel matters in the management of the case study university, such as appointing the university president. In addition, the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs co-chairs the supervisory board of the case study university and provides a member of the university’s executive board. This demonstrates that representatives of the partner FPOs and NPOs are structurally involved in the maintenance, further development, and innovation processes concerning the case study university and the CSPs offered.

290

6

Discussion of Results

Consequently, this provides evidence that the representatives of FPOs and NPOs constitute a very significant stakeholder group with various levels of influence— alongside the stakeholder group of professors and other stakeholder groups such as students or government and higher education policy representatives. Finally, our second research expectation is fully supported as the stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives can be classified as a very influential stakeholder group at the strategic level. More precisely, their levels of influence represent the demand side (gatekeeper in terms of sending students into a CSP and placing requirements on the implementation of CSPs through committees) on the quasi-market of CSPs. Revisiting the third research expectation Carrying out CSPs implies cooperation between the university and industry (external stakeholders). We expect that outside organizations that are partners in CSPs (micro level) influence the curriculum to a different extent than would be the case at a regular university or university of applied sciences, for example. We substantiate this expectation again through stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). Consequently, stakeholder theory helps us better understand stakeholder powers and their spheres of influence with respect to CSPs. Our third research expectation referred to the program level (micro level) of CSPs and assumed once external stakeholders are involved in the study program implementation, they influence the shape of the curriculum. Particularly the dual learning sites on the premises of the cooperating partner company in addition to the university learning site bring this assumption to the fore. Hence, a high degree of influence on the practical part of the curriculum—and thus the content—of CSPs might be attributed to the external stakeholders from the partner companies (industry). Regarding our findings, two spheres of influence regarding the content of CSPs stand out with respect to the research expectations: first, the program coordinator at the case study university is a permanent contact person for both students and FPO and NPO representatives. The program coordinator is responsible for the content and didactic design of the CSPs. In the self-attribution of the program coordinators, the possibilities of content and didactic design of CSPs were perceived as an area with a high degree of academic freedom. According to program coordinators’ statements, they make active use of the opportunity to shape the content and didactics of the CSP assigned to them in close cooperation with the partner FPO and NPO representative. In addition, the program coordinators perceive the CSP phase at the case study university as their main domain, which is shaped actively through teaching, hiring lecturers from outside the university, and adapting the modules according to

6.2 Revisiting Research Expectations

291

academic standards and requests from partner FPO and NPO representatives. One can say that the program coordinator fulfills a significant gatekeeper role for CSPs. Following that, the representatives of partner FPOs and NPOs perceive the program coordinators as competent contact persons for all matters concerning CSPs. The practical phase of a CSP is perceived as the domain of the representatives of partner FPOs and NPOs. According to the program coordinators’ perceptions, the practical phase of a CSP is seen as a challenge concerning the design and implementation according to academic standards. The representatives of partner FPOs and NPOs perceive a CSP as an investment in building competence in their own company, ensured by qualifying a student through a CSP. From the perspective of FPOs and NPOs, CSPs are a strategic tool supporting them to operationalize a recruitment strategy. At a strategic level, the FPOs and NPOs are concerned with making an attractive qualification offer to young people. In this context, aspects of connectivity to a master’s degree and the opening of an attractive career path are paramount. Many partner FPOs and NPOs have a corporate supervisor for students in CSPs to ensure that skill-building via CSPs succeeds within their operations. Our study showed that this is particularly true for large and medium-sized companies. The corporate supervisor is in charge of the implementation of CSPs on the business premises. Further, the corporate supervisor is a permanent contact person for both the students of the FPO and NPO and the case study university’s program coordinators. It reflects the partner FPOs’ and NPOs’ special responsibility for implementing the practical part of the CSPs on their business premises. Thus, one can conclude that FPO and NPO representatives (for example, HR managers) influence the organizational and content-related implementation of CSPs. In organizational terms, this is due to the planning and coordination of the course of study of a CSP on the business premises. Content-wise, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs determine what should be learned during the practical phase of a CSP. In addition, our study showed that corporate supervisors often support their CSP students during the preparation of their theses (for example, project thesis, bachelor thesis) as a company contact person. They can thus influence the content of the topic and its treatment. Furthermore, in some instances, our study has shown that FPO and NPO representatives appear as part-time lecturers for the theoretical phases of CSPs when the topic is of current relevance. Since the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs coordinate the planning with their contact person, the program coordinator, at the case study university, they also use the opportunity to influence content aspects of the respective CSP via their feedback (for example, through a request for including particular industry issues).

292

6

Discussion of Results

Finally, representatives of FPOs and NPOs use their influence in the context of the case study university through their demand for current teaching and qualification content. The representatives of the partner FPOs and NPOs actively introduce their study content demands, both in discussions with program coordinators and through their seats in the committees of the case study university. We conclude that our third expectation is supported to the extent that the stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives is involved in implementing CSP curricula and thus significantly influences the content. However, this influence is limited on the university’s side by the program coordinators’ gatekeeping role and channeled according to academic standards. Basically, a distinction is made between a theory phase and a practical phase in the CSP. The program coordinator has the majority of influence on the theory phase where the representatives of the profit and nonprofit organizations can only influence the contents of CSPs through feedback on the perceived teaching quality of their students or holding lectures in the respective CSP. In the practical phase, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs have the majority of influence on the content of the CSP. The program coordinators saw this as a challenge in terms of academic quality assurance. After revisiting and discussing this study’s research expectations, the following picture emerges: CSPs operated on the various campuses of the multi-campus university in proximity to the business premises of FPOs and NPOs. They are shaped and implemented in a bottom-up process in a regional reality. This bottom-up process occurs between program coordinators (professors) and representatives of the partner FPOs and NPOs (industry). One can conclude that professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs play a very significant role in the functioning and thus governance of CSPs. The interactions of both stakeholder groups shape the organizational, strategic, and content levels of CSPs. The stakeholder group of professors focuses on the academic quality of the CSPs. In contrast, the representatives of FPOs and NPOs concentrate on the development of competences in their specific business context. These two aspects shape the content of CSPs in the form of symbiosis between academic and business interests.

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the Governance of the Third Mission

Section 7.1. of this chapter presents answers to our main research question and the guiding subquestions. Section 7.2. deals with a comprehensive overview of the outcomes of our case study. Furthermore, Section 7.3. links back to the concepts and theories applied, maps out the limitations of our research, and proposes further research avenues. Finally, Section 7.4. entails some additional comments on practical aspects of the research challenge of our case study and reflects on the chosen research strategy.

7.1

Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions

In Chapter 1 (see Section 1.2), the main research question was posed as follows: How do stakeholders influence the governance of the third mission at the multicampus university in the case of CSPs? The research question was accompanied by the following subquestions: How are CSPs organized in the context of a multi-campus university? What stakeholders are involved in the governance of CSPs, and what is their role? How do these stakeholders influence the content of CSPs? We start with answering the subquestions first, and at the end of the section, we answer our main research question. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4_7

293

294

7.1.1

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

How are CSPs Organized?

The first subquestion referred in its content to the organization of the third mission in the context of a multi-campus university. Based on the results presented in Chapter 5, we can state at the outset that the third mission has been clearly institutionalized in the case of CSPs. Institutionalization refers to establishing a separate type of higher education institution to fulfill the third mission, i.e., as is the case for the DHBW by offering and implementing CSPs exclusively. The organization of CSPs at the case study university takes place at two levels. At the meso level, all strategic issues concerning CSPs are coordinated, evaluated, and binding decisions are made for all (stakeholder) parties. At the micro level of the university, CSPs are adapted and implemented on campuses of the case study university (location in the sense of a subsidiary) in cooperation and collaboration with FPOs and NPOs to meet local needs. In addition, impulses for new developments are taken up. The organizational structure as a multi-campus university also reflects the two levels of organization. The regionally distributed campuses ensure proximity to the FPOs and NPOs and provide a platform to run the CSPs jointly. In addition, the campuses are reporting to a central university administration. In turn, the central organizational unit is dedicated to setting and maintaining common standards for CSPs and formulating and implementing a common strategy for the university as a whole. Finally, the university is accountable to the Ministry of Science of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Thus, on the one hand, the third mission of the case study university has been institutionalized in the form of CSPs under the roof of a university. On the other hand, it can be concluded that the organizational structure of a multi-campus university in the present case contributes to the broad impact of the third mission CSPs. Our findings also allow us to state that the third mission in the form of CSPs has shaped the organizational design of the university; or, argued vice versa, the third mission has a tailored structure at the meso and micro levels of the case study university. The organizational structure and the process organization are embedded in the structure of a multi-campus university. Therefore, it can also be concluded that the structures of the multi-campus university, in terms of organizational structure and process organization, serve as a platform for cooperation, implementation, and further development of CSPs. In addition, an extensive and highly interwoven network of committees at the meso and micro levels ensures the intensive participation of the relevant stakeholder groups. The committees range from a high degree of formality such as a senate, supervisory board, or expert commission to more casual, such as regularly

7.1 Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions

295

organized company representative meetings at the level of a study program (micro level). Based on our data, the following impression emerges: on the meso level, the committees serve the purpose of joint standardization and strategy development and implementation. At the micro level, the committees still have formally important tasks, but their focus is more on the adaptation to local conditions, supervision, and monitoring. This is always the case for CSPs. All in all, the role of the committees can be reduced to a common denominator: generally speaking, they have the function of monitoring, supervising, and supporting CSPs. This is also reflected in the composition of the committees, where the representatives of the university (professors) and the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs (industry) hold the majority of the seats. This principle of stakeholder participation via committees is established and common in higher education. However, in the case of CSPs, this also shows certain similarities to the dual vocational training sector. There, the main stakeholders are involved in a similar way. The design of the study programs also entails an aspect that relates to the question of the organization of the third mission. The strong modularization of CSPs makes it possible to distinguish between module areas with academic core subjects and module areas with occupational field specifics. This creates a study structure that allows the training needs of FPOs and NPOs to be addressed in terms of content and organization.

7.1.2

What Stakeholders are Involved and What is their Role?

Based on the literature, we identified professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, students, and government and higher education policy representatives as critical stakeholders of CSPs. Our empirical research showed that these four stakeholder groups are essential for the functioning of CSPs. Within this, we differentiated between the meso level and the micro level. At the meso level (institutional level) of CSPs, professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and representatives of the government and higher education policy are primarily involved in the strategic governance of CSPs. Although the student stakeholder group is involved, it plays a subordinate role at this level. At the micro level (program level) of CSPs, professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and students are primarily involved in the operational governance of CSPs. Finally, the involvement of representatives of the government and higher education policy takes place exclusively at the strategic level of CSPs.

296

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

Having identified the key stakeholder groups, we now consider their roles for CSPs. Stakeholder group of professors: within the stakeholder group of professors, we differentiated between professors in the function of program coordinator and those in university management. A professor in the function of a program coordinator is responsible at the micro level for a CSP and all questions concerning its implementation. The roles of intermediary, conductor of CSPs, and guardian of academic quality could be identified. At the meso level of the university, a program coordinator assumes the roles of editor/author of the curriculum and steward for their CSP in connection with committee work. The university management incorporates roles at the meso level that work in two directions. On the one hand, the top management level (e.g., president) aims to ensure cooperation within the multi-campus university and formulate a common strategy, thereby representing the university to the outside world. On the other hand, the role at the level of middle management (e.g., head of campus) is aimed at representing the university in a region to the outside world and, directed inwards, to moderate impulses for new study programs and to integrate them in the sense of the campus and overall strategy. The roles of representative/facilitator, rapporteur, and capacity control were identified. These are aligned to the respective activity level. Stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives: at the micro level, the roles of gatekeeper, co-conductor of study programs, and customer (feedback provision) were identified. The FPO and NPO representatives provide study places, select students, and organize the course of study on their business premises in close cooperation and coordination with the case study university based on existing curricula. In addition, they are in direct exchange with a program coordinator and provide feedback on the teaching experience and organization. It is interesting to note that the material examined shows that the role of the feedback provider evolves in interaction with the student role of the feedback provider towards the university. In principle, this means that feedback is provided to the university from two mutually reinforcing sources. At the meso level, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs are firmly integrated into the university’s committee structure. They are powerful actors for the CSPs and carry out the roles of co-designer/co-author of curricula, customer (capacity request), and lobbyist. At this point, it is important to mention that the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs are, on the one hand, representatives of

7.1 Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions

297

their business interests and, on the other hand, have become members of the university due to their involvement in CSPs. Therefore, they are also representatives of the interests of the university. Stakeholder group of students: at the micro level, a student in a CSP is first and foremost identified in the role of a customer. This can be seen in the fact that students provide feedback on the experienced teaching quality using all available channels (e.g., quality circles). However, the customer role of the students is also reflected in the attribution of them being also employees with a clear expectation of teaching quality. At the meso level, students are active in the case study university’s committees through their student representatives, occupying the roles of lobbyist/facilitator and customer. This became evident in the decisive representation of their interests, such as drafting the study and training contract for CSPs. Stakeholder group of government and higher education policy representatives: representatives from the sphere of government and higher education policy can be located at the meso level, where the following roles were identified: rule maker, financier, and lobbyist. The rule maker role refers to the design of the Higher Education Act (of Baden-Wuerttemberg) and its contents with regard to the type of higher education institution and CSPs. The role of the financier refers to the provision of funding for the case study university and its tasks in the context of a public corporation by means of a long-term financing agreement between the government and the university. Finally, the lobbying role is multi-layered and refers, on the one hand, to the direct interests of the government and the responsible ministry in terms of the differentiation of the higher education landscape and the function of the university. On the other hand, the role refers to the demandorientation of CSPs, their complementary function in the higher education system, and their further development.

7.1.3

Stakeholder Influence the Content of CSPs

Finally, the third subquestion to our research question dealt with the content dimension of CSPs and asked how stakeholders influence the content of CSPs. Stakeholder group of professors: the influence of professors is represented by the function of program coordinator and refers to the micro and the meso levels of the case study university. The sphere of influence at the micro level of the case study university is located in the context of a study program. It is carried

298

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

out at a campus (in the sense of a location or subsidiary) of the case study university. There, the program coordinators are responsible for implementing the CSPs according to the academic standards of the case study university, which are laid down in a binding curriculum. Furthermore, program coordinators are the first point of contact for representatives of FPOs and NPOs, students, part-time lecturers, and the superordinated university management. Concerning the contents of CSPs, the professorial function has a very high degree of influence in the following dimensions. First, the professors in person hold lectures and determine the contents and didactics in the context of their professional autonomy. Second, program coordinators advise and supervise the representatives of FPOs and NPOs in implementing CSPs in general questions of organization, teaching content, and didactics. They further support them in questions concerning implementing the practical study phases at the respective business premises. Thus, the program coordinators can be credited with a high degree of influence in this area as well. Third, the program coordinators entrust teaching assignments to part-time lecturers. Consequently, the program coordinators are equally responsible for teaching content, didactics, and organization in an advisory and instructive capacity. This, in turn, indicates a high degree of influence on the content level. Fourth, program coordinators advise and supervise the students in preparing their scientific papers (project thesis, bachelor thesis), which reflects a high degree of influence on the content level. At the meso level of the case study university, the program coordinators are responsible for the ongoing monitoring of the module contents in their assigned degree program and their further development. In addition, program coordinators either translate their ideas into modules and curricula or take them up and develop new modules and curricula. Consequently, the professors at the case study university possess a crucial role in the maintenance and further development of the teaching content of CSPs. Although professors in university management usually have a reduced teaching load, they give lectures in CSPs. Consequently, university management professors directly influence teaching contents and didactics in their courses. In addition, they support the program coordinators in the maintenance and further development of the curricula within the framework of committee work in the university and higher education policy work and thus indirectly influence the contents. Stakeholder group of students: the stakeholder group of students in CSPs is primarily the recipient of the teaching contents. It has the opportunity to judge on the perceived quality. Thus, a significant indirect influence on teaching contents can be ascribed to the students. They exert their influence on the contents through

7.1 Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions

299

direct feedback to the assigned program coordinator, written surveys as part of the quality management system of the case study university, their practical supervisor in the FPO and NPO, and their voice on university committees. This concerns both the topicality of teaching contents and questions of didactic quality. Stakeholder group of FPO and NPO representatives: as a rule, the stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs is both co-organizer of a CSP, especially for the practical phase on the respective business premises, and recipient of teaching contents, and thus teaching quality, through its own students. Consequently, as co-organizers, representatives of FPOs and NPOs directly influence course contents in coordination with the program coordinator based on the valid curricula of CSPs. The FPO and NPO representatives also indirectly exert a strong influence on the content of the study programs on offer through their demand (provision of study places) for specific study programs and feedback on the teaching quality of existing study programs gathered from students and their own impressions. Further, representatives of FPOs and NPOs inform their program coordinators about existing and future qualification needs. The program coordinators translate these into adapted or new modules or entire study programs and involve the FPOs’ and NPOs’ representatives to receive feedback for further content development. If a proposal for a new or amended module or course is relevant for representatives of FPOs and NPOs, they plan to send more or new students to a CSP in the future. Accordingly, representatives of FPOs and NPOs have a high degree of influence on the content of CSPs, directly following that of professors. The impact is within the regulations of the case study university. Last but not least, representatives of FPOs and NPOs indirectly influence the content of CSPs in the context of their seats on university committees, where decisions are made about study programs (which ultimately stand for content). Stakeholder group of government and higher education policy representatives: within the stakeholder group of government and higher education policy representatives, no direct influence on teaching contents could be identified. However, indirectly this stakeholder group does have a clear effect on the content level of CSPs. The indirect impact is reflected in the determination of the framework conditions. Hence, the indirect influence is manifold. First of all, the responsible Ministry of Science (of Baden-Wuerttemberg) must approve the establishment of new study programs and the termination of existing study programs. Hypothetically, the responsible Ministry of Science can also indirectly influence teaching contents by giving or refusing the necessary approval when a professorship is appointed. This is due to the fact that a vacant

300

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

professorship is usually advertised with a content profile. The content profile always stands for an academic subject. The academic subject, in turn, represents a specific teaching profile. Furthermore, indirect influence is asserted through the imposition of particular funding programs to introduce academic training for specific professional groups. In our case, the academization of nursing is an impressive example of this development. This will encourage the development of new capacities for study programs (and thus also content). Furthermore, our data also show that representatives of higher education policy with representatives of employers’ associations seek a dialogue with the university in the case of shortages of qualifications and encourage the creation of certain CSPs as an offer. In this case, direct access is provided through involvement in the university committees. Consequently, at least an impulse is given to create a certain range of study programs, which, after all, stands for a bundle of contents. To what extent the university answers this is then decided in line with the university’s autonomy. Our explanations show that although there is no direct influence on the content of CSPs, an indirect effect seems to be possible in a relatively strong form. However, our data indicate that university autonomy generally remains respected.

7.1.4

How do Stakeholders Influence the Governance of the Third Mission?

In the following, we answer our main research question. Based on the literature, we identified professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, students, and representatives stemming from government and higher education policy as key stakeholder groups that influence CSPs’ third mission governance. To be more precise, the stakeholder groups can be located on two levels of our research case: At the meso level, we find professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and representatives of government and higher education policy as stakeholders exerting influence on the governance of CSPs and thus the third mission. Moreover, our empirical research has shown that these stakeholders influence the strategic development of CSPs in various interwoven roles. Finally, at the micro level, the stakeholder groups of professors, representatives of FPOs and NPOs, and students influence the implementation and further development of CSPs in various interdependent roles. The stakeholder group of professors takes on different roles, including guaranteeing the provision of courses, academic quality, and the management of university affairs relating to CSPs. Thus, the part of professors is aligned with the

7.1 Answering the Main Research Question and Subquestions

301

delivery of CSPs and shapes the profile of the case study university and the CSPs offered. Consequently, have a significant impact on the governance of CSPs and third mission governance. Our empirical research has shown that the CSPs are jointly developed and implemented between university professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs. Thus, to use a biological metaphor, it is possible to speak of a kind of symbiosis between university professors and representatives of FPOs and NPOs concerning the development and implementation of CSP offerings. In essence, it is this kind of symbiosis that boosts third mission governance in the case of CSPs. In their roles, the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs take on the counterpart as buyers or consumers of CSPs of the case study university. As providers of study places at their business premises and demanders of certain skill profiles through CSPs, the FPOs and NPOs significantly influence the case study university and the CSPs offered, i.e., on third mission governance. At the center of the CSP operations stand the students as quasi-customers who, on the one hand, expect attractive career opportunities from their studies in one of the cooperating FPOs and NPOs and, on the other hand, further development options in the direction of a master’s degree and a dissertation. Therefore, the case study university and the FPOs and NPOs alike are required to provide an attractive offer in the shape of CSPs so that a sufficient number of young people decides in favor of this path, which in turn makes them influential actors on the third mission governance in the case of CSPs. Further, our empirical research has shown that the state (represented by the state level of Baden-Wuerttemberg and its representatives from government and higher education policy) has a significant influence on the governance of CSPs, and thus the governance of the third mission. For example, the state representatives shape the third mission through the regulatory framework for CSPs (Higher Education Act), while state representatives secure the funding for said CSPs, and thus, again, the third mission. This context creates a state-regulated quasi-market for CSPs, which provides the framework for implementing CSPs. Finally, our empirical research has shown that the geographic proximity of stakeholders is a significant factor (customer proximity). With its structure as a geographically distributed multi-campus university, the case study university enables such spatial proximity and thus the platform for networking with the regional and local business communities to develop, operate, and advance CSPs. Consequently, the spatial proximity of the case study university is a significant factor influencing third mission governance.

302

7.1.5

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

Summary and Conclusion of the Case Study

Our core findings relate to our epistemic interest, which is the governance of the third mission of higher education institutions in the field of teaching. We were particularly interested in how stakeholders influence the governance of the third mission. Our key findings of this study are as follows: • First, the governance of the third mission provides the conditions for the stakeholders and their specific roles and resulting interactions for the third mission to flourish. • Second, the third mission activities are bundled and framed at an institutional level to have a targeted effect. More specifically, bundling the CSPs as an example of a teaching-related third mission under the umbrella of a university can achieve a high impact within a geographical area (regional level, BadenWuerttemberg). • Third, in implementing a third mission and its governance, the state plays a salient role. The state and its higher education policy (represented in this case by the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and its responsible bodies and authorities for higher education policy) shape the framework conditions for the third mission and its governance. More specifically, these are reflected in the design of the regulatory framework via higher education legislation and the provision of funding for third mission activities, which prepares the ground for a quasi-market. • Fourth, we found that the FPOs and NPOs (by providing a place to study) have a mandate to formally co-determine the governance of the case study university and thus the governance of the CSPs. The mandate is designed to ensure that FPOs and NPOs benefit from their involvement in the third mission. In the case of the CSPs, this would be the development of academic know-how in their own operations. • Fifth, we found out that the roles of the university professors were directed towards the CSPs. The professors take on typical university tasks such as curriculum development and the planning and implementation of courses. However, this is done in close coordination with the FPOs and NPOs. Together with the representatives of the FPOs and NPOs, the university professors ensure the academic quality of degrees awarded in CSPs. We used the following theoretical concepts to access the research field: through stakeholder theory, we identified and located the key stakeholders of CSPs. As

7.2 Contribution of the Case Study

303

a result, we were able to capture and better understand the motives, power relations, and spheres of influence of key stakeholders. In addition, selected concepts of the third mission helped us to understand its nature and classify it. To this end, we combined the concepts of the Triple Helix, the Regional Innovation System, and the Entrepreneurial University to form an approach whose elements mutually reinforced each other. They all had in common their focus on stakeholders and their specific roles and contributions to the third mission. To capture and understand governance in the higher education context, we combined this with traditional concepts of higher education governance. These include a working definition of higher education governance, the governance equalizer concept, and a conceptualization of the multi-campus university. Our study has shown that there is still space for a further variant in an already highly differentiated higher education system. The example of the DHBW shows in higher education practice how this can be achieved via horizontal differentiation and how the sector of universities of applied sciences can simultaneously direct their further development. Here, the government plays a significant role and makes active use of its creative freedom to establish innovation in the shape of a new type of university institution. Using the example of CSPs, it was shown how the third mission is carried out in the case of teaching at universities of applied sciences and what influence the stakeholders exert on it. The stakeholder group of FPOs and NPOs, in particular, was given a mandate by the state to influence the university and its development of third mission activities. The discussion on the subject of CSPs in the light of the third mission has made it clear that universities can also contribute to supply regional labor markets with skilled workers. Finally, the study provides insights and findings on the organization of the third mission in the case of the teaching function of a university. It indicates that formal structures and processes, as well as the underlying network of roles and relationships of core stakeholders, determine the governance of the third mission. This is the case at two primary levels: the institutional level (meso level) when it comes to co-determining the strategy, and at the program level (micro level) when it comes to co-determining the activities and their quality and quantity.

7.2

Contribution of the Case Study

In the previous section, our research questions were answered based on empirical material. In addition, this section takes up the discussion of Chapter 6. It classifies them according to the empirical implications for higher education research and the implications for the practice of higher education governance.

304

7.2.1

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

Empirical Contributions of the Case Study

Chapter 2 of this thesis pointed out some of the gaps in the literature on the third mission and higher education research concerning the setup of governance for a teaching-related third mission and the role of stakeholders in it. To be more precise, this comprised the lack of empirical data concerning the governance of third mission and teaching, the lack of empirical data about universities of applied sciences and teaching, a knowledge gap concerning the governance of CSPs, and a lack of empirical data concerning the aspect of a multi-campus university. In the following, we will discuss these aspects and argue for the empirical contribution of this thesis. Our study has made an empirical contribution to broadening the view and understanding of the third mission, especially in Germany, where the third mission is often narrowly perceived as focusing almost exclusively on technology transfer activities. Above all, the present study’s contribution lies in having investigated an example for a teaching-oriented third mission in the practice of higher education institutions. This study uses the example of CSPs in Germany to show how the governance of these programs works and what role the stakeholders play in it. As a result, our study fills a research gap in the governance of the third mission in the field of higher education’s teaching mission. Our study shows that CSPs can be understood as a teaching-oriented third mission and that stakeholders play an essential role in their governance. The previous section argued that, especially in Germany, the third mission of universities is perceived as technology transfer only. This narrow perspective on the third mission also holds true for universities of applied sciences, where studies focused on technology transfer activities and the resulting impact. Our study concentrated on a university of applied sciences with CSPs and represents an empirical example of a teaching-related third mission. Hence, the study shows how a teaching-related third mission can function in the UAS sector and how the stakeholders, in particular, are involved. Consequently, this thesis broadens the view on the third mission and its governance in universities of applied sciences by taking into account the teaching-related third mission and the resulting impact of universities of applied sciences in the qualification of young people through CSPs. The studies on CSPs in Germany to date have examined the phenomenon from very different perspectives. Depending on the research angles, the discourse on CSPs in Germany also has several disparate limitations. These relate to three main aspects: the regional limitation of the survey area, the focus on a specific

7.2 Contribution of the Case Study

305

model of CSPs, and the reference to a specific type of higher education institution. Our study shares these limitations to a degree: the survey area is limited to the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the focus lies on the practice-integrated model of CSPs, and it is restricted to one type of university of applied sciences. Nevertheless, our study broadens the empirical field of studies on CSPs in Germany, fits into the heterogeneous canon of studies, and contributes to knowledge about the governance of CSPs and stakeholder involvement. Consequently, this study refers to the prime example of CSPs in Germany and represents a new aspect in the context of the general study situation of CSPs in Germany. Crucially, CSPs have not been perceived and studied through the lens of a teaching-oriented third mission before. Through this study, we could show exactly which stakeholders are involved in the governance of CSPs and what influence they have on the success of the teaching-oriented third mission. Last but not least, and almost as a by-product of the conducted research, this study contributes to the empirical knowledge about multi-campus universities. More precisely, this study provides an empirical example of a multi-campus university for the sector of universities of applied sciences in Germany and thereby contributes to closing a knowledge gap in higher education research and governance. In the case of CSPs, the university’s on-site representation with a campus in immediate proximity to the FPOs and NPOs is of paramount importance to ensure the third mission in the form of CSPs.

7.2.2

Practical Implications of the Case Study

In general, the findings of our case study show that, despite an already exceedingly differentiated higher education system, there is still space left for a distinctly specialized form of higher education institution. In the following section, we turn to the implications of our findings for the practice of higher education policy and higher education management. In doing so, we have used questions as a guide to structuring the following section. What do our findings tell us about the role of stakeholders in the governance of the third mission? Our findings have shown that stakeholders are critical to the functioning of the governance of the university’s third mission. More specifically, this involves key stakeholders such as FPOs and NPOs and university professors. Without the FPOs and NPOs and their willingness to actively participate in the third mission in the form of CSPs, this model of academic education could not be realized.

306

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

Consequently, a strong commitment of the stakeholders to the third mission forms a precondition. In particular, providing a study place and implementing the practical training phases are central aspects for FPOs and NPOs. Further, without the university and its professors, the third mission in the shape of CSPs could not be realized since they take over such tasks as designing and implementing the curricula. In addition, the FPOs and NPOs, together with the university professors, must design and implement a sufficiently attractive range of CSPs to attract a sufficient number of students to this educational path and realize the third mission. Last but not least, the state, in the shape of its competent authorities, ensures that the governance of the third mission can only function within an appropriate regulatory framework. In addition, there is the provision of sufficient funding to sustainably secure the third mission offering in the shape of a quasi-market of CSPs. What do our findings tell us about what works in the governance of the third mission? Concerning the governance of the third mission at universities, our findings show that in the case of CSPs, the collaboration between the university and the FPOs and NPOs works well when a clear framework for action is available for this purpose. It consists of roles and responsibilities that are anchored in law and entails that the FPOs and NPOs have rights and duties if they want to participate in implementing the third mission in the form of CSPs. Our findings also show that a clearly formulated third mission of a university, as represented by the case of CSPs, generates a high level of commitment among all stakeholders involved and thus promotes the implementation of the third mission. What do our findings tell us about what does not work in the governance of the third mission? The third mission governance proves problematic in the context of a multicampus university consisting of geographically dispersed campuses. It has been shown that the campuses implement the third mission in the form of CSPs according to the wishes and ideas of local actors and their community, thus inhibiting a unified strategy and standardization of CSPs and hence the third mission and its governance. In addition, our findings show that when a teaching-oriented third mission is implemented, as in the case of CSPs, professors have little time available for the task of research. While this is generally true for the UAS sector, it is again particularly pronounced in the case of CSPs due to the design of the programs with

7.3 Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues

307

practical training elements and the underlying structural exchange relationship with industry. The joint implementation of CSPs with representatives of FPOs and NPOs demands a great deal of time from professors. It is therefore difficult for them to devote themselves to research activities on the side. What do our findings tell us about how to take care of governance power in third mission governance? Our findings have shown that the involvement of key stakeholders forms a guiding principle in the governance of the third mission in the case of CSPs. Consequently, the key stakeholders make the system of CSPs work. The findings of our case show that by setting clear frameworks, the state ensures that the power of stakeholders, and thus their influence on the governance of the third mission, takes place within a fixed framework of action. Furthermore, our case shows that stakeholders can exert their influence on third mission governance within the institutional framework of the case study university through the university’s committee system. In this context, a balanced ratio of seats ensures a level distribution of power and forces. In a joint negotiation and decision-making process, the stakeholders set the institutional framework based on which the third mission is implemented in the form of CSPs.

7.3

Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues

This thesis is based on an in-depth case study of a multi-campus university of applied sciences. At this point in our case study, it is essential to reflect on our research process. First of all, we reflect on the chosen theoretical and conceptual approach and the chosen methods. Finally, we suggest further paths for future research.

7.3.1

Reflection on Theory

Discussion of the theoretical model used and its underlying idea The developed theoretical model (see the end of Chapter 3) guided our investigation and formed reference points for our research. Consequently, our research object was viewed exclusively from this perspective. It can be concluded that this specific perspective contains a limitation and has shaped the research process. However, we argue that the choice of perspective depended on our research interest and was deliberately chosen from the perspective of higher education research. Higher education researchers perceive their research object in the light

308

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

of an interdisciplinary field of research. Hence, the research field is fed by several academic disciplines, above all sociology, political science, economics, and education (to mention the most familiar examples). Consequently, a certain degree of diversity of perspectives is always behind the structure of higher education research, which also applies to the concepts and theories used in the research process. Our theoretical model included stakeholder theory, theoretical models, and conceptualizations on governance and third mission in a particular combination: • Stakeholder theory, the stakeholder salience approach, and the viable system model were used as theoretical concepts. These originated from economics and its subdisciplines, business administration, and management. • The governance models and conceptualizations used (e.g., the definition of governance, governance of higher education, and governance equalizer) originated in the political sciences and were adopted in economics and higher education research and adapted for academic (sub)disciplines. • The theoretical concepts and models used in the context of the third mission, above all the Triple Helix model and the Entrepreneurial University concept, originated in sociology and economics in the field of innovation management. Based on our argumentation and due to the theoretical perspectives employed, our research combined three major academic disciplines and their underlying theories: economic sciences, political sciences, and sociology. These are oriented towards the research field and thus the knowledge interests of higher education research. Consequently, we used a theoretical concept appropriate to higher education research and our underlying research interest. In other words, one can speak of a purposive theoretical approach. In the following subsections, we leave the reflective meta-perspective and look at the function of our theoretical models and concepts used in the research process. Using stakeholder theory The university’s third mission implies producing relevant output for a specific target group or stakeholder group in the university’s immediate local and regional environment. Furthermore, the third mission activities of universities require the integration of previously external stakeholders into university governance which challenges the underlying governance system. Therefore, it was appropriate to use stakeholder theory for our research. Moreover, stakeholder theory was supplemented by using the Triple Helix model and the higher education governance model. Both models were necessary to maintain access to the third mission of universities and their governance.

7.3 Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues

309

The conceptual underpinnings included the consideration of stakeholders and their roles. Therefore, it turned out to be very helpful to use stakeholder theory as a tool to make the power of stakeholders visible. More specifically, the stakeholder theory allowed us to understand and capture the roles and actions of individual stakeholders and the resulting dynamics and influences. On this basis, we developed a theoretical model, which guided the course of our investigation. We believe that the theoretical model developed has provided us with a clear focus to fathom the research question of how stakeholders influence third mission governance in the case of CSPs. In addition, it turned out that the theoretical framework served as a guide throughout the case study as theoretically chosen reference points guided it. Using the concepts of Triple Helix and Entrepreneurial University as access to the third mission of universities The Triple Helix model allowed us to unravel the stakeholder constellation for our case study university at the meso level where university, industry, and government work together to promote a particular object of innovation reflected by the CSPs teaching-oriented third mission. Further, the Triple Helix model suggests that innovation promotion results in hybrid organizations, shaped in their logic of action by the institutional sectors of university, industry, and government. Consequently, through the lens of the Triple Helix, we were able to better comprehend the case of CSPs as a teaching-oriented third mission. Further, the Triple Helix model suggested that the Entrepreneurial University model is a vehicle to foster innovation, which is the third mission in the shape of the CSPs. Consequently, the Entrepreneurial University concept allowed us to access our case in its specific form. The use of the two concepts also allowed us to gain a better, more holistic understanding of the roles and influences of the involved stakeholders and their interactions. In particular, the combination of models allowed us to understand the roles of stakeholders who were previously seen as outsiders to the higher education sector as integral parts of the higher education system through the third mission. Using governance theory led to a concise definition of higher education governance, the Governance Equalizer, and a typology of the multi-campus university The OECD’s (2008) definition of higher education governance seemed to be a suitable definition for our research as it covered a wide range of aspects and thus the complexity of the term. It essentially refers to structures, processes, relationships, and underlying interactions. The chosen definition proved to be very helpful, as it served as a basis for the operationalization of higher education

310

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

governance and thus provided access to empirical data. Due to its wide range of aspects, it enabled us to gain an almost complete picture of our case. The application of the Governance Equalizer model posed the challenge that, to date, it had been used at the macro and meso levels of higher education research. As far as we know, using the approach at the meso and micro levels is, to a certain extent, uncharted territory. Thus, its application can be regarded as quasi-experimental. Another challenge was to grasp and delimit the individual dimensions. As the higher education sector, in general, is subject to considerable change, the dimensions can change their content reference points over time. The problem was solved by strictly adhering to the content (per dimension) as reference points in the original definition. We believe that the Governance Equalizer—as outlined in the theoretical Chapter 3—supported our research as a heuristic. The heuristic lies in the provision of the dimensions. These dimensions fostered the research process to capture and outline governance dynamics in our particular case at both the micro and meso levels (see the discussion in Chapter 6).

7.3.2

Reflection on Methodology

A qualitative research approach was chosen for this thesis to investigate a phenomenon—the CSPs and how stakeholders influence their governance—in detail and evaluate it interpretatively. Our methodological strategy relied on an open method, namely the case study method, to gain detailed information about our research interest. We aimed to intentionally approach the object of research with openness, giving us space to discover new, previously unknown facts. Our qualitative research process allowed the key stakeholders of CSPs to speak for themselves, where possible, to capture their subjective perspectives. The basic assumption guided us that humans are self-reflective subjects who can act as experts for themselves and thus should be understood as such. Our qualitatively obtained data provided the details and depth necessary for a comprehensive and conclusive understanding of a new or salient phenomenon from the real-world context. The case study selection has served its purpose to answer our research questions. The case of Baden-Wuerttemberg and the DHBW shows a high degree of formalization and standardization concerning third mission governance in the quasi-commercialization of university teaching. The third mission activities are in the hands of the academic profession and are organized through specific university structures. Moreover, the case revealed that a significant dimension of

7.3 Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues

311

third mission activities lies in the management of cooperation, both internally and externally. The selection of two embedded subcases enabled the regional aspect of the third mission to be explored more closely. Since the case under investigation adheres to a single ideal model of CSPs, the differences between “metropolis” and “rural area” were not as significant as initially assumed. Nevertheless, it was worthwhile to use this viewing template, as it allowed us to examine important aspects of the multi-campus university. One challenge in carrying out the case study was to capture the breadth and diversity of the university and its stakeholders. The university’s dependence on an ideal–typical study model facilitated access and ensured comparability within the case. A theory-based selection of the interview partners enabled us to take a representative sample and generate a complete insight (360-degree view) into the case. However, it should also be mentioned that our single-case study has methodological boundaries and empirical limitations. We took a closer look at this in Chapter 4 and based our work primarily on understanding case study research according to Yin (2014). Case study research after Yin (2014) is seen as an example of how theories that are little conceptualized and operationalized can be advanced. Consequently, Yin (2014) uses the metaphor of an experiment and the resulting contextualized explanations (Ridder, 2017, p. 284). Case studies have thus attributed the character of an experiment, and their course and results are recorded. This should enable other researchers to replicate the experiment. In conclusion, case studies follow a replication logic instead of a sampling logic (Göthlich, 2003). However, higher education research is also subject to constant change, making it difficult to replicate a case. In general, universities as organizations are an object of higher education research. Therefore, as organizations, universities are a part of society and form a societal subarea. Accordingly, they are also the subject of reforms and, in general, of changes. Thus, the research object in our case study is also subject to a dynamic of change. In the particular case of the DHBW, the offered CSPs are directly linked to the labor market and its dynamics, constituting a source for such a change. Consequently, our study and its results cover a certain period (2016–2019). From this, it can be concluded that there might be a methodological boundary to our research. An empirical limitation could be the choice of a case because it might not provide sufficient width and depth. However, the argument can be invalidated to the extent that our selection of the case is based on our research interest and the underlying theoretical perspectives and thus has a directional character. Therefore, our chosen sampling focused strongly on the purpose of the case study, as

312

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

we already outlined in Chapter 4 as “purposive sampling.” The sampling strategy selected in the context of case study research was further substantiated by the following quotation from Siggelkow (2007): “In fact, it is often desirable to choose a particular organization precisely because it is very special in the sense of allowing one to gain certain insights that other organizations would not be able to provide.” (Siggelkow, 2007, p. 20). The advantage of a particular case selection, as described by Siggelkow (2007), is at the same time a disadvantage when the selection of the case makes generalizability not possible or at least more difficult. This leads us to the problem of the generalizability of case studies. The argument originated in a quantitative school of thought with the purpose of drawing conclusions from a sample to arrive at statistical generalizability (Göthlich, 2003). However, authors of methodology literature such as Yin (2014) argue that the case study method is not about discovering and enumerating frequencies. Accordingly, a case study is comparable to an experiment, and its course and results follow a strict procedure and are recorded, allowing results to be replicated and backed up. Another problem with case studies lies in the fact that the subjectivity of the researcher leads to bias. We admit that this assertion is undoubtedly true. However, it can be reduced by certain measures, which we have considered and implemented for the present thesis. In doing so, we were guided by the quality criteria for case studies and quality improvement measures provided by Yin (2014) and critically reflected on our role as higher education researchers (see Chapter 4). Further, of course, the choice of method itself can also be a problem. Our case study relied on semi-structured interviews with representatives of key stakeholder groups and documents as data sources. These were analyzed and interpreted with qualitative data analysis based on a theory-based system of categories. The approach was supplemented with the process tracking method. We believe that the chosen strategy has helped us gain an in-depth understanding of our research problem and draw an almost complete picture. In doing so, we were always guided by our theoretical concepts. However, this strength also contains a weakness: the insights gained have taken place in the context of a single case and thus again affect the problem of generalizability mentioned above. In the context of the study situation on CSPs in Germany, there are also important arguments to be made regarding limitations. The limitations include three main aspects: first, a regional limitation of the survey area, which is the region of Baden-Wuerttemberg in Germany. Second, the focus of a specific CSPs model is the practice-integrated model of CSPs, representing the dominant model in the landscape of CSPs in Germany. Third, the case refers to a certain type of higher

7.3 Critical Reflection and Further Research Avenues

313

education institution, which is a particular type of university of applied sciences in Germany. Nevertheless, the study has the capacity to contribute to broadening the very heterogeneous field of empirical studies on CSPs in Germany. Finally, we justify that the chosen case is the prime example of CSPs in Germany and that numerous other studies have pointed to the prime example.

7.3.3

Further Research Avenues

From the perspective of a general management approach, our study has shown a range of the topic of third mission governance in university teaching for higher education research using a single-case study. Hence, our study might serve as a pathfinder for further research avenues. Therefore, the following subsection of this chapter suggests future research paths. First, the theoretical approach of this study could be used to examine further case studies of CSPs and their institutionalization and work on them in a comparative case analysis. For example, by mapping out the differences in stakeholder influences in comparing the federal states of Germany and their CSP concepts. Further possible case studies for the institutionalization of CSPs are offered, for example, by the federal states of Bavaria, Thuringia, or Hesse. Second, it might be of interest for higher education research to investigate how the roles and identities of the academic profession change in the context of CSPs. This could be contrasted with already existing findings in higher education research with regard to research-oriented universities. For example, Leišyt˙e and Dee (2012) have already indicated in the context of research-oriented universities that the third mission is changing the job description of the academic profession. Third, our research did not consider the role of part-time lecturers. As a desideratum for research, the only finding was that this group hardly played a role in university governance and thus in third mission governance, which was shown by the lack of representation in university committees. Fourth, based on our case study, it is possible to examine management and organizational peculiarities at dual universities in more detail. It would be interesting to find out more about the underlying understanding of leadership among holders of middle management positions and the top management of university management at dual universities. Fifth, there is a need to pay more attention to university teaching in the context of the third mission. Here, future studies could, for example, be devoted to the area of academic continuing education in the context of the transformation in the economy and society.

314

7

Conclusion: Stakeholder Influence on the …

Furthermore, further case study research on the increasingly growing but still limited number of studies can empirically strengthen the still underexposed field of universities of applied sciences in higher education research and the niche of cooperative degree programs. This would also help support the higher education policy debate in a knowledge-based way and make future higher education policy decisions more evidence-based than is the case today.

7.4

Closing Section

We would like to list three selected quotes from our interviews. At their core, these reveal practical insights from our study and confirm findings on third mission governance in higher education research. The first quote reflects the governance problem associated with the third mission, especially in the context of a multi-campus university: “I believe that when it comes to governance, as recent years have shown, this construct can only be controlled to a limited extent.” (Interview #12). The second quote contains the essence of the case under investigation, namely that using the Triple Helix approach, university, industry, and state cooperate and serve a common purpose: “So, what I associate above all with the fact that, let me say, this is really the only university where business, politics, and university really pull together.” (Interview #15). The third quote reflects the changing role of the professorship and suggests that the case study university functions according to different rules of the game than is usual in the academic field: “I did not end up here at a classical university as I know university.” (Interview #7). The three quotes make it clear that studying organizations such as higher education institutions is a complex endeavor (Leišyt˙e & Dee, 2012). This has proven to be true for our case, and this study emerged from an exceptional experience: the author worked at the university under study and has closely followed its development (my role as a researcher was discussed in Chapter 4). Carrying out the chosen case study was a complex endeavor, and from up close, it was certainly easier to see how the case could be scientifically permeated. The current study also leaves behind a number of traces and issues that could not be pursued further and opens the field for further research. We have already made our proposals for this in the previous section.

Literature

Altbach, P. G. (2008). The complex roles of universities in the period of globalization. 1, 6–8. http://hdl.handle.net/2099/8111. Arbo, P., & Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions : A literature review. In OECD, Directorate for Education, Working Paper No. 9 (Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1787/161208155312. Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy. Regional Studies, 45 (7), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/003 43404.2011.596701. Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of Higher Education—Global Perspectives, Theories and Practices. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/978 1315816401. Autio, E. (1998). Evaluation of RTD in regional systems of innovation. European Planning Studies, 6 (2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319808720451. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2018). Process Tracing Methods. In Handbuch Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. (Issue January, pp. 1–21). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-658-16937-4_43-1. Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35 (1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10. 1057/jors.1984.2. Beer, S. (2008). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Malik Management Zentrum St. Gallen (Ed.). MCB Publishing House. Benneworth, P. (2009). Characterising modes of university engagement with wider society—A literature review and survey of best practice (Issue June). http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/ wp-content/uploads/Characterisingmodesofuniversityengagementwithwidersociety.pdf. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59 (5), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 B. R. Schiller, Governance of the Third Mission at a Multi-Campus University, Gabler Theses, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36526-4

315

316

Literature

Benneworth, P., Pinheiro, R., & Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2016). One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy. Science and Public Policy, 43 (6), 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw018. Benneworth, P., & Zomer, A. (2011). The Rise of the University’s Third Mission. In J. Enders, H. F. de Boer, & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe (pp. 81–101). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0_6. Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (2007). Handbuch Governance—Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Berghaeuser, H., & Hoelscher, M. (2020). Reinventing the third mission of higher education in Germany: political frameworks and universities’ reactions. Tertiary Education and Management, 26 (1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09030-3. Berthold, C., Leichsenring, H., Kirst, S., & Voegelin, L. (2009). Demographischer Wandel und Hochschulen: Der Ausbau des Dualen Studiums als Antwort auf den Fachkräftemangel. http://www.che.de. Berthold, C., Meyer-Guckel, V., & Rohe, W. (2010). Mission Gesellschaft, Engagement und Selbstverständnis der Hochschulen: Ziele, Konzepte, internationale Praxis. In Edition Stifterverband. Edition Stifterverband, Essen. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008a). Understanding College and University Organization— Theories for Effective Policy and Practice—Volume I—The State of the System. Stylus Publishing. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008b). Understanding College and University Organization— Theories for Effective Policy and Practice—Volume II—Dynamics of the System. Stylus Publishing. Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. BIBB. (2017). Duales Studium in Zahlen 2016—Trends und Analysen. Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (Ed.). Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB), Bonn. https://www.bibb. de/dokumente/pdf/59df505289ed7_bibb_09-282_ausbildungplus_barrierefrei_korr_urn. pdf%0Awww.bibb.de. Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. (2015). Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations. Organization Studies, 36 (7), 873–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615571960. Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). Organization and Governance of Universities. Higher Education Policy, 20 (4), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300167. BMBF. (2017). The Bologna Process. https://www.bmbf.de/en/the-bologna-process-1421. html. Borlaug, S. B., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2018). Researcher identities and practices inside centres of excellence. Triple Helix, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0059-3. Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1094428106289253. Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (1999). Towards a new Governance for Universities?: A Comparative Perspective (Higher Edu). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Literature

317

Brünner, K., Chvosta, A., & Oertel, S. (2016). Die Institutionalisierung dualer Studiengänge: Hintergründe, Verlauf und Entwicklung. In U. Faßhauer & E. Severing (Eds.), Verzahnung beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. Duale Studiengänge in Theorie und Praxis. (pp. 63–80). Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung. http://www.bibb.de/veroeffentlichungen. Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contemporary Education, 70 (No. 4), 5–10. Burzan, N. (2016). Methodenplurale Forschung. Chancen und Probleme von Mixed Methods. N. Burzan, P. Eisewicht, & R. Hitzler (Eds.). Beltz Juventa. Cai, Y., & Etzkowitz, H. (2020). Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix Journal, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10003. Cambridge University Press. (2020). Cambridge Dictionary. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374. Champenois, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation. Technovation, 76–77, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002. Chatterton, P., & Goddard, J. (2000). The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs. European Journal of Education, 35, 475–496. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press. Clark, B. R. (1998a). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Clark, B. R. (1998b). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. International Association of Universities, Paris. Codling, A., & Meek, L. V. (2006). Twelve Propositions on Diversity in Higher Education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1787/hempv18-art17-en. Collier, D. (2011). Understanding Process Tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44 (No. 4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (4), 945–974. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.945. Cooke, P. (2020). Regionale Innovationssysteme, Cluster und die Wissensökonomie. In B. Blättel-Mink & A. Ebner (Eds.), Innovationssysteme. Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. (pp. 87–118). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-22343-4_5. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1994). The regional innovation system in Baden-Württemberg. International Journal of Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1994. 025582. Davies, J. L. (1987). The Entrepreneurial and Adaptive University. Report of the Second US Study Visit. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11 (1), 12–104. de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Leišyt˙e, L. (2007). Public Sector Reform in Dutch Higher Education. The Organizational Transformation of the University. Public Administration, 85 (No. 1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00632.x.

318

Literature

de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations: Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration (pp. 137–152). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5831-8_5. De Boer, H., & File, J. (2009). Higher education governance reforms across Europe. In ESMU Project. http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/publications/Publications2009/C9HdB1 01MODERNPROJECTREPORT.pdf . de Weert, E. (2011). Transformation or systems convergence?—The Research Profile of Universities of Applied Sciences in Europe. In Jürgen Enders, H. de Boer, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe (pp. 103–122). Sense Publishers. Deem, R. (1998). “New managerialism” and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014. Deissinger, T. (2015). The German dual vocational education and training system as ‘good practice’? Local Economy, 30 (5), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215589311. Dobbins, M., & Jungblut, J. (2019). Higher Education Governance. http://urn.nb.no/URN: NBN:no-71037. Duong, S., Hachmeister, C.-D., Roessler, I., & Scholz, C. (2016a). Facetten und Indikatoren für angewandte Forschung und Third Mission an HAW. Die Hochschule: Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 25 (2016/1), S. 87–99. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn: nbn:de:0111-pedocs-161969. Duong, S., Hachmeister, C. D., Roessler, I., & Scholz, C. (2016b). Katalog von Facetten von und Indikatoren für Forschung und Third Mission an Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften (Arbeitspapier No. 189). Gütersloh. Retrieved from https://www.che.de/dow nload/fifth_die_hochschule_1_2016-pdf/. EHEA. (2017). European Higher Education Area and Bologna process. http://www.ehea. info/. Enders, Juergen, Boer, H. De, & Leišyt˙e, L. (2008). On Striking the Right Notes: Shifts in Governance and the Organisational Transformation of Universities. From Governance to Identity, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8994-7_9. Enders, Jürgen. (2016). Differenzierung im deutschen Hochschulsystem. In Differenzierung im deutschen Hochschulsystem (pp. 503–516). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-056 77-3. Enders, Jürgen, de Boer, H., File, J., Jongbloed, B., Westerheijden, D., Faber, M., Kottmann, A., Beerkens, M., Vossensteyn, H., van Vught, F., Zomer, A., Benneworth, P., de Weert, E., Dassen, A., & Leišyt˙e, L. (2011). Reform of Higher Education in Europe (Jürgen Enders, H. de Boer, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Sense Publishers. Erhardt, D. (2011). Hochschulen im strategischen Wettbewerb—Empirische Analyse der horizontalen Differenzierung deutscher Hochschulen. Gabler Verlag. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002. Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information, 52(3), 486–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413485832.

Literature

319

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4. Etzkowitz, H., & Ranga, M. (2013). Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. In Industry and Higher Education (Vol. 27, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix—University–Industry–Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2nd Edition). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620183. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2007). Invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Regional Innovation Initiator: The Entrepreneurial Univerisity in Various Triple Helix Model, 1–25. Faßhauer, U., & Severing, E. (2016). Duale Studiengänge : Stand und Perspektiven der Verzahnung von beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. In U. Faßhauer & E. Severing (Eds.), Verzahnung beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. Duale Studiengänge in Theorie und Praxis. (pp. 7–17). Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB). http://www.bibb. de/veroeffentlichungen. Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56 (3), 325–348. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5. Flick, U. (2011). Triangulation—Eine Einführung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92864-7_2. Fochler, M. (2018). How entrepreneurs learn in their region: entrepreneurial strategies, financialisation and narrative learning in the Vienna biotechnology cluster. Triple Helix, 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0055-7. Freeman, C. (2009). Das “Nationale Innovationssystem” aus historischer Perspektive. In B. Blättel-Mink & A. Ebner (Eds.), Innovationssysteme: Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (pp. 27–50). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91349-0_2. Freeman, C. (1987). Technical Innovation, Diffusion, and Long Cycles of Economic Development. In T. Vasko (Ed.), The Long-Wave Debate (pp. 295–309). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & Colle, S. de. (2010). Stakeholder theory. In the state of the art. Cambridge University Press. Furco, A. (2010). The Engaged Campus: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Public Engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00071005.2010.527656. Gensch, K. (2016). Erfolgreich im Studium, erfolgreich im Beruf: Absolventinnen und Absolventen dualer und regulärer Studiengänge im Vergleich (Studien zur Hochschulforschung 87).

320

Literature

Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge—The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Goeser, J., Isenmann, M., & Brengmann-Domogalla, H. (2012). AusbildungPlus Betriebsumfrage 2011. http://www.ausbildungplus.de/files/Auswertung_Betriebsumfrage2011. pdf. Goldstein, H. (2010). The ‘entrepreneurial turn’ and regional economic development mission of universities. The Annals of Regional Science, 44, 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00 168-008-0241-z. Göransson, B., Maharajh, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36(March), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X406863. Göthlich, S. E. (2003). Fallstudien als Forschungsmethode: Plädoyer für einen Methodenpluralismus in der deutschen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung (No. 578; Manuskripte Aus Den Instituten Für Betriebswirtschaftslehre Der Universität Kiel). http://hdl.handle. net/10419/147639. Graf, L. (2012). Wachstum in der Nische: Mit dualen Studiengängen entstehen Hybride von Berufs- und Hochschulbildung. WZB Mitteilungen, 49–52. Graf, L. (2013a). The Hybridization of Vocational Training and Higher Education in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. In The Hybridization of Vocational Training and Higher Education in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Budrich UniPress Ltd. https://doi.org/ 10.3224/86388043. Graf, L. (2013). The Hybridization of Vocational Training and Higher Education in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Budrich UniPress Ltd., Berlin & Toronto. https://doi.org/10. 3224/86388043. Graf, L., Powell, J. J. W., Fortwengel, J., & Bernhard, N. (2014). Duale Studiengänge im globalen Kontext: Internationalisierung in Deutschland und Transfer nach Brasilien, Frankreich, Katar, Mexiko und die USA (No. 77; DOKMAT). https://www.bibb.de/dok umente/pdf/dokmat-band-77.pdf. Hachmeister, C.-D., Duong, S., & Roessler, I. (2015a). Forschung an Fachhochschulen aus der Innen- und Außenperspektive: Rolle der Forschung, Art und Umfang (No. 181; Arbeitspapier), Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE), Gütersloh. Hachmeister, C.-D., Duong, S., & Roessler, I. (2015b). Hemmnisse und Fördermaßnahmen für Forschung und Third Mission an Fachhochschlen (No. 187; Arbeitspapier). https:// www.che.de/download/che_ap_187_hemmnisse_foerdermassnahmen_forschung_third_ mission_fh-pdf/. Hachmeister, C.-D., Henke, J. tus, Roessler, I., Schmid, S., Schneidewind, U., Würmseer, G., Koschatzky, K., Kroll, H., Schubert, T., Altenschmidt, K., Miller, J., Wolf, B., Szerencsits, M., Gaus, H., Heß, J., Duong, S., Scholz, C., Schütz, M., Röbken, H., & Mangold, K. (2016). Gestaltende Hochschulen. Beiträge und Entwicklung der Third Mission. (P. Pasternack, Ed.). Institut für Hochschulforschung (HoF) Halle-Wittenberg.

Literature

321

Hanft, A. (2017). Hochschulen in Reformprozessen—Managen oder führen? In Führen in Hochschulen (pp. 51–67). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16165-1. Harwood, S. A. (2016). Multi-level research into the social: An old wine in an old forgotten bottle? (University of Edinburgh Business School Working Paper Series). University of Edinburgh Business School. Heidenreich, M., & Krauss, G. (1997). The Baden-Württemberg production and innovation regime: past successes and new challenges. Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of Governances in a Globalized World., 214–244. Heinbach, W. D., & Kühnle, S. (2012). Überschwemmt der doppelte Abiturjahrgang die Hochschulen? Auswirkungen der verkürzten gymnasialen Schulzeit auf den Hochschulbereich—Ein Vergleich zwischen Baden-Württemberg und Bayern. Beiträge Zur Hochschulforschung, 34. Jg (Heft 4), 54–76. Retrieved from https://www.bzh.bay ern.de/fileadmin/news_import/4-2012-Heinbach-Kuehnle.pdf. Henke, J. (2019). Third Mission als Organisationsherausforderung. Neuausrichtung der Machtstrukturen in der Hochschule durch Professionalisierungstendenzen im Wissenschaftsmanagement. BWV—Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin. Henke, J., Pasternack, P., & Schmid, S. (2015). Viele Stimmen, kein Kanon. Konzept und Kommunikation der Third Mission von Hochschulen. Halle-Wittenberg: Institut für Hochschulforschung (HoF). Retrieved from https://www.hof.uni-halle.de/web/dateien/pdf/01_AB_ Third-Mission-Berichterstattung.pdf. Henke, J., Pasternack, P., Schmid, S., & Schneider, S. (2016). Third Mission Sachsen-Anhalt. Fallbeispiele OVGU Magdeburg und Hochschule Merseburg. Halle-Wittenberg: Institut für Hochschulforschung (HoF). Retrieved from https://www.hof.uni-halle.de/web/dat eien/pdf/AB_100_ThM-LSA.pdf. Hesser, W. (2019). Implementierung einer dualen Hochschulausbildung an Hochschulen und in Unternehmen im Ausland. Hamburg: Helmut-Schmidt-Universität. Retrieved from http://opus.ub.hsu-hh.de/volltexte/2018/3189/pdf/Duale_Hochschulausbildung_f inal.pdf. Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis. Department for Education and Employment, London. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225083565_Employability_Deve loping_a_framework_for_policy_analysis_London_DfEE. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK). (2019). Hochschulen in Zahlen 2019. https://www. hrk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk/02-Dokumente/02-06-Hochschulsystem/Statistik/201905-16_Final_fuer_Homepage_2019_D.pdf. Holuscha, E. (2012). Das Prinzip Fachhochschule: Erfolg oder Scheitern?—Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel Nordrhein-Westfalen. Philipps-Universität Marburg. https://doi.org/10. 17192/z2013.0240. Hösel, S. (2010). Verkannte Innovationen im Bildungssektor? Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. Retrieved from https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DocumentServ let?id=14582. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK). (2017). Implementing Bologna structures and principles in German universities. https://www.hrk.de/activities/bologna-process.

322

Literature

Hüning, L., Mordhorst, L., Röwert, R., & Ziegele, F. (2017). Hochschulbildung wird zum Normalfall—auch in räumlicher Hinsicht? Eine Analyse der Ausbreitung von Hochschulstandorten seit 1990. Retrieved from https://www.che.de/wp-content/uploads/upload/Im_ Blickpunkt_Hochschulbildung_in_raeumlicher_Hinsicht.pdf. Hüther, O. (2009). Hochschulräte als Steuerungsakteure ? Beiträge Zur Hochschulforschung, 31. Jg(No 2), 50–73. Retrieved from https://www.bzh.bayern.de/fileadmin/news_import/ 2-2009-huether.pdf. Hüther, O. (2010). Von der Kollegialität zur Hierarchie? Eine Analyse des New Managerialism in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. (P. Hiller & G. Krücken, Eds.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2018). Higher Education in Germany—Recent Developments in an International Perspective. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/ book/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61479-3. Imboden, D. (2016). Internationale Expertenkommission zur Evaluation der Exzellenzinitiative—Endbericht. http://www.ieke.info. Jansen, D., Benz, A., Kulmann, S., Sodowski, D., Schuppert, F. G., Trute, H.-H., Wittek, R., Schimank, U., Groß, T., De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., Denkhaus, W., Basiatn, B., Hoffmann, K., Arnold, N., Heinze, T., Kuhlmann, S., Wald, A., & Franke, K. (2007). New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. (D. Jansen, Ed.). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5831-8. Jingmin, C., Lackner, H., & Qidong, W. (2018). Anwendungsorientierung in der Hochschulbildung als Zukunfts- und Erfolgsmodell. Zu den Perspektiven der Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften in Deutschland und China. In Xj. Cai, H. Lackner, & Q. Wang (Eds.), Jahrbuch Angewandte Hochschulbildung 2018. Deutsch-chinesische Perspektiven und Diskurse. (pp. 1–10). Springer VS. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56 (3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2. Kamm, C., Lenz, K., & Spexard, A. (2016). Beruflich Qualifizierte in dualen Studiengängen—Grenzgänger zwischen akademischer und beruflicher Bildung. In U. Faßhauer & E. Severing (Eds.), Verzahnung beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. Duale Studiengänge in Theorie und Praxis. (pp. 117–134). Kehm, B. M., Merkator, N., & Schneijderberg, C. (2010). Hochschulprofessionelle?! Die unbekannten Wesen. Zeitschrift Für Hochschulentwicklung, 5 (4), 23–39. https://doi.org/ 10.3217/zfhe-5-04/03. Kleinmann, B. (2015). Universitätsorganisation und präsidiale Leitung—Führungspraktiken in einer multiplen Hybridorganisation. Springer VS. Koch, T., Egeln, J., Diekhof, J., Kinne, J., Koll, F., Kramer, J.-P., … Schwarze, H. (2018). Regionale Innovationssysteme in Baden-Württemberg: Bestandsaufnahme und Schlussfolgerungen. Stuttgart/Mannheim, Germany. Retrieved from https://wm.baden-wuerttemb erg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-wm/intern/Dateien_Downloads/Innovation/PM_88__Anl age_PrognosZEW_RegInnoBW.pdf. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1 (1984), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-72238.50017-4.

Literature

323

Krauss, G. (2009). Baden-Württemberg als Prototyp eines regionalen Innovationssystems: Eine organisationssoziologische Betrachtungsweise. In B. Blättel-Mink & A. Ebner (Eds.), Innovationssysteme: Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (pp. 229–248). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-531-91349-0_11. Krauss, G. (2020). Das baden-württembergische Innovationssystem als organisationales Feld: eine organisationssoziologische Betrachtung. In B. Blättel-Mink & A. Ebner (Eds.), Innovationssysteme: Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (pp. 261–285). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-658-22343-4_12. Kroll, H., Dornbusch, F., & Schnabl, E. (2016). Universities’ Regional Involvement in Germany: How Academics’ Objectives and Opportunity Shape Choices of Activity. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1595–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1051016. Krone, S. (2015a). Das duale Studium. In S. Krone (Ed.), Dual Studieren im Blick—Entstehungsbedingungen, Interessenslagen und Umsetzungserfahrungen in dualen Studiengängen (pp. 1–28). Springer VS. Krone, S. (2015b). Dual Studieren im Blick—Entstehungsbedingungen, Interessenslagen und Umsetzungserfahrungen in dualen Studiengängen. S. Krone (Ed.). Springer VS. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03430-6. Krone, S., Nieding, I., & Ratermann-Busse, M. (2019). Dual studieren—und dann? Eine empirische Studie zum Übergangsprozess Studium–Beruf dualer Studienabsolvent/inn/en. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Retrieved from https://www.boeckler. de/pdf/p_study_hbs_413.pdf. Krücken, G. (2013). University Research and Innovation (pp. 1869–1873). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_342. Krücken, G. (2017). Die Transformation von Universitäten in Wettbewerbsakteure. Beiträge Zur Hochschulforschung, 39(No 3/4), 10–29. Retrieved from https://www.bzh.bayern.de/ fileadmin/news_import/3-4-2017_Kruecken.pdf. Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change (pp. 241–257). Oxford University Press. Krücken, G., Meier, F., & Müller, A. (2007). Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries—Technology transfer in German and American discourses. Higher Education, 53(6), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-7650-4. Krücken, G., Meier, F., & Müller, A. (2009). Linkages to the civil society as “leisure time activities”? Experiences at a German university. Science and Public Policy, 36 (2), 139– 144. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X406854. Kruecken, G. (2013). University Research and Innovation. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer-Verlag New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8. Kuhlee, D., & Irmscher, M. (2018). Duales Studium vs. duale Ausbildung: Zur Diskussion um die Relevanz dualer Studienangebote unter Berücksichtigung der Unternehmensperspektive. Kuhlmann, S., & Arnold, E. (2001). RCN in the Norwegian Research and Innovation System. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Utrecht University, NL, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Technopolis Ltd.

324

Literature

Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). (2017). Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In Darstellung der Kompetenzen, Strukturen und bildungspolitischen Entwicklungen für den Informationsaustausch in Europa (pp. 1–385). Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Retrieved from https://www.kmk.org/dokumentation-statistik/informationen-zum-deutsc hen-bildungssystem/dossier-deutsch.html. Lackner, H. (2016). Die Stellung der Fachhochschulen im deutschen Hochschulsystem. In J. Cai & H. Lackner (Eds.), Jahrbuch Angewandte Hochschulbildung 2016. Deutschchinesische Perspektiven und Diskurse. (pp. 133–157). Springer VS. Lackner, H. (2018). 50 Jahre Fachhochschulen. Systembildung und Perspektiven eines deutschen Erfolgsmodells. In Xj. Cai, H. Lackner, & Q. Wang (Eds.), Jahrbuch Angewandte Hochschulbildung 2018. Deutsch-chinesische Perspektiven und Diskurse. (pp. 149–168). Springer VS. Laredo, P. (2007a). Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of University Activities? Higher Education Policy, 20 (4), 441–456. https://doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169. Laredo, P. (2007b). Toward a third mission for Universities. The Third Mission of Universities, 1–11. Working Paper UNESCO workshop. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/ education/fr/files/53913/11858787305Towards_a_third_Mission_universities.pdf/Tow ards_a_third_Mission_universities.pdf. Lassnigg, L., & Auer, A. (2012). Wien und die „Third Mission“ der Hochschulen. Wien. Retrieved from https://docplayer.org/1077811-Wien-und-die-third-mission-derhochschulen.html. Leišyt˙e, L. (2007). University governance and academic research—Case studies of research units in Dutch and English universities. University of Twente. Retrieved from https://ris. utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6086391/thesis_Leisyte.pdf. Leišyt˙e, L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding Academic Work in a Changing Institutional Environment. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 27, pp. 123–206). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-2950-6_3. Leišyt˙e, L., & Fochler, M. (2018). Topical collection of the Triple Helix Journal: agents of change in universityindustry-government-society relationships. Triple Helix, 5 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0056-6. Leišyt˙e, L., & Sigl, L. (2018). Academic institutional entrepreneurs in Germany: navigating and shaping multi-level research commercialization governance. Triple Helix, 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0057-5. Leišyt˙e, L., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2014). 7. Stakeholders and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Drivers and Barriers to Achieving Quality in Higher Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-494-9_7. Leišyte, L., Zelvys, R., & Zenkiene, L. (2015). Re-contextualization of the Bologna process in Lithuania. European Journal of Higher Education, 5 (1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10. 1080/21568235.2014.951669. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268825. 001.0001.

Literature

325

Logermann, F. (2014). Students as Stakeholders in the Policy Context of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education Institutions. University of Twente. Retrieved from https://essay.utwente.nl/65543/1/Logermann_MSc_MA_MB. pdf. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Pub Ltd. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). National Innovation Systems—Analytical Concept and Development Tool. Industry and Innovation, 14:1, 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/136627106011 30863. Maassen, P., Andreadakis, Z., Gulbrandsen, M., & Stensaker, B. (2019). The Place of Universities in Society. Hamburg, Germany: Körber Stiftung. Retrieved from https://www. koerber-stiftung.de/mediathek/the-place-of-universities-in-society-1744. Maennig-Fortmann, F., & Poppenhagen, N. (2019). Duales Studium—Ein Zukunftsmodell mit Optimierungsbedarf. In Analysen & Argumente (Issue 336, pp. 1–13). KonradAdenauer-Stiftung e. V. Magnell, M. (2019). Engaged in a seamless blend: A study on how academic staff approach connections to professional practice and research in the engineering curriculum. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.diva-por tal.org/smash/get/diva2:1370006/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Malik, F. (2008a). General Management Model. https://www.malik-management.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/malik-general-management-model-600.jpg. Malik, F. (2008b). Unternehmenspolitik und Corporate Governance—Wie Organisationen sich selbst organisieren. Campus Verlag GmbH. Mars, M. M., Bronstein, J. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics, 41 (4), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.org dyn.2012.08.002. Mars, M. M., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: Significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. Higher Education, 59(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9258-1. Martin, B. R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). The Origin and Evolution of the University Species (Vol. 1). New York, Brighton. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow nload?doi=10.1.1.599.5719&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Mayntz, R. (2008). Von der Steuerungstheorie zu Global Governance. In G. F. Schuppert & M. Zürn (Eds.), Governance in einer sich andelnden Welt (pp. 43–60). Nomos Verlag. Mayring, Philipp. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution [Klagenfurt]. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12. Mayring, Philipp. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. (12. Auflage). Beltz Verlag. Meyer-Guckel, V., Nickel, S., Püttmann, V., & Schröder-Kralemann, A.-K. (2015). Qualitätsentwicklung im dualen Studium: Ein Handbuch für die Praxis. (V. Meyer-Guckel, S. Nickel, V. Püttmann, & A.-K. Schröder-Kralemann, Eds.). Essen: Edition Stifterverband. Retrieved from https://www.stifterverband.org/download/file/fid/26. Mill, U. (2015). Die Entstehung dualer Studiengänge: Auf der Suche nach einer neuen Governance. In S. Krone (Ed.), Dual Studieren im Blick—Entstehungsbedingungen, Interessenslagen und Umsetzungserfahrungen in dualen Studiengängen (pp. 127–165). Springer VS.

326

Literature

Minks, K.-H., Netz, N., & Voelk, D. (2011). Berufsbegleitende und duale Studienangebote in Deutschland: Status quo und Perspektiven. Hannover, HIS Hochschul Informations System GmbH. Retrieved from https://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201111.pdf. Mintzberg, H. (1989). The structuring of organizations. Readings in Strategic Management, 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20317-8_23. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997. 971102210. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002a). Measuring Third Stream Activities: Final Report to the Russel Group of Universities. In SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research (Issue April). Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002b). Measuring Third Stream Activities. Sussex. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/532097/Measuring_ third_stream_activities. Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J. M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720802254072. Mordhorst, L., & Nickel, S. (2019). Grenzenloses Wachstum? Entwicklung des dualen Studiums in den Bundesländern (Nr. 212; Arbeitspapier). Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE), Gütersloh. Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using Institutional Theory to Reframe Research on Academic Drift. Higher Education in Europe, (27:4), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0379772022000071977. Nagel, M., Mieke, C., & Teuber, S. (2020). Methodenhandbuch der Betriebswirtschaft. UVK Verlag München. Nelles, J., & Vorley, T. (2010). From policy to practice: engaging and embedding the third mission in contemporary universities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7/8), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443331011060706. Nelson, R. R. (1992). National innovation systems: A retrospective on a study. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1 (2), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/1.2.347. Nickel, S. (2011a). Der Bologna-Prozess aus Sicht der Hochschulforschung. Analysen und Impulse für die Praxis. In Arbeitspapier Nr. 148 (No. 148). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 273-007-0693-2. Nickel, S. (2011). Governance als institutionelle Aufgabe von Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. In Autonomie und Verantwortung. Governance in Schule und Hochschule. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat. Retrieved from https://www.che.de/wp-content/ uploads/upload/Governance_als_institutionelle_Aufgabe_von_Universitaeten_und_Fac hhochschulen.pdf. Niederdrenk, K. (2013). Zur Rolle der Fachhochschulen im deutschen Hochschulsystem. In Schriftenreihe Baden-Württemberg-Stiftung (Ed.), Gleichartig—aber anderswertig? Zur künftigen Rolle der (Fach-)Hochschulen im deutschen Hochschulsystem. (pp. 11–31). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Retrieved from https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2014/ 8582/pdf/Niederdrenk_2013_Zur_Rolle_der_Fachhochschulen.pdf.

Literature

327

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40 085884. OECD. (2001). Tertiary Education in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities. Higher Education Management, 13 (2), 9–128. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v14-art 8-en. OECD. (2003). Changing of Patterns of Governance in Higher Education. Education Policy Analysis—2003 Edition, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264047846-zh. OECD. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society (Vol. 1). Papadimitriou, A. (2020). Beyond rhetoric: reinventing the public mission of higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 26 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233019-09046-9. Pavlin, S. (2016). Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises. European Journal of Education, 51 (1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ejed.12163. Peksen, S., & Zeeman, N. (2019). Higher Education System Reform in Germany. In Higher Education System Reform (pp. 37–52). Brill, Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900440 0115_003. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostr??m, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. Pflüger, J., Pongratz, H. J., & Trinczek, R. (2010). Fallstudien in der deutschen Arbeitsund Industriesoziologie. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In H. J. Pongratz & R. Trinczek (Eds.), Industriesoziologische Fallstudien. Entwicklungspotenziale einer Forschungsstrategie (pp. 22–71). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845268996-22. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wick, A. C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (4), 479–502. Pinheiro, R., & Berg, L. N. (2016). Categorizing and assessing multi-campus universities in contemporary higher education. Tertiary Education and Management. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13583883.2016.1205124. Pinheiro, R., Berg, L. N., & Nordstrand Berg, L. (2017). Categorizing and assessing multicampus universities in contemporary higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1205124. Pinheiro, R., Charles, D., & Jones, G. (2017). Translating strategy, values and identities in higher education: the case of multi-campus systems. Tertiary Education and Management, 23 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1248858. Power, D., & Malmberg, A. (2008). The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: In what sense a regional problem? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsn006. Ridder, H. G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z. Roessler, I. (2016). Haben Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften das Potential, Mode 3-Universitäten zu werden? Der Einfluss von Third Mission und weiterer Faktoren auf Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften auf dem Weg zur Grundlagenforschung im Anwendungskontext und. TU Dortmund University. https://doi.org/10.17877/DE290R17249.

328

Literature

Roessler, I., Duong, S., & Hachmeister, C.-D. (2015). Welche Missionen haben Hochschulen? Third Mission als Leistung der Fachhochschulen für die und mit der Gesellschaft (No. 182; Arbeitspapier). Retrieved from https://www.che.de/download/che_ap_182_third_ mission_an_fachhochschulen-pdf/. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. International Journal of Plant Science, 158, S65–S80. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 259249. Sam, C., & van der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 891–908. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9750-0. Scheidewind, U. (2016). Die “Third Mission” zur “First Mission” machen? Die Hochschule. Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung, (Gestaltende Hochschulen. Beiträge und Entwicklung der Third Mission.), p. 14–22. Schenkenhofer, J., & Wilhelm, D. (2019). Fuelling Germany’s Mittelstand with complementary human capital: the case of the Cooperative State University Baden-Württemberg. European Journal of Higher Education, 10:1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235. 2019.1694421. Schewe, G. (2020). Organisationsstruktur. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. https://wirtschaftslexi kon.gabler.de/definition/organisationsstruktur-43095/version-266428. Schimank, U., & Lange, S. (2009). Germany: A Latecomer to New Public Management. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives (pp. 51–75). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4020-9515-3_3. Schneijderberg, C., Kloke, K., & Braun, E. (2011). Disziplinäre Zugänge zur Hochschulforschung. Die Hochschule : Journal Für Wissenschaft Und Bildung, 20 (1994), 7–24. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-163149. Schrader, J., Schmid, J., Amos, K., & Thiel, A. (2015). Governance von Bildung im Wandel— Interdisziplinäre Zugänge. Springer VS. Schumpeter, J. A. (2017). The Theory of Economic Development. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Source: Political Research Quarterly, 61226 (2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077. Seeber, M. (2016). Non-university Higher Education. In J. C. Shin & P. Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion With Case Studies, 50 (No 1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2007.24160882. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism—Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Specht, D. (2020). Lebenszyklus. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. https://wirtschaftslexikon.gab ler.de/definition/lebenszyklus-39913/version-263311. Stahlecker, T., & Zenker, A. (2017). Das baden-württembergische Innovationssystem im Wandel: Akteure vor neuen Herausforderungen. Standort, 41 (3), 180–185. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00548-017-0491-z.

Literature

329

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2018). Hochschulen auf einen Blick. Bildung, Forschung Kultur. Wiesbaden. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/ Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/_inhalt.html;jsessionid=6EEBF7A79C81E54 D35A07FF105642431.internet741#sprg233706. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2019). Personal an Hochschulen 2019. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Retrieved from https://www. destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/ Publikationen/Downloads-Hochschulen/personal-hochschulen-2110440197004.html. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2020). Studierende an Hochschulen 2019. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesell schaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Publikationen/_publikationeninnen-hochschulen-studierende-endg.html. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2018). Finanzen der Hochschulen 2018. Wiesbaden. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kul tur/Bildungsfinanzen-Ausbildungsfoerderung/Publikationen/_publikationen-innen-fin anzen-hochschulen.html. Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg. (2018). Innovationsindex 2018. https://www. statistik-bw.de/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018291. Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg. (2020). Hochschulen nach Hochschularten. https://www.statistik-bw.de/BildungKultur/Hochschulen/Hochschularten.jsp. Szadkowski, K. (2013). University’s Third Mission As a Challenge To Marxist Theory. In M. Kwiek (Ed.), Czlowiek i Spoleczenstwo XXXV/1 European Universities: Changing Roles ´ and Functions in New Environments (CZŁOWIEK I SPOŁECZENSTWO) (pp. 203–218). Pozna´n: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Retrieved from http://cpp.amu.edu.pl/kwiek/pdf/ 11_SZADKOWSKI.pdf. Teichler, U. (2008). Hochschulforschung international. In K. Zimmermann, M. Kamphans, & S. Metz-Göckel (Eds.), Perspektiven der Hochschulforschung (pp. 65–85). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90827-4_3. Teichler, U. (2014). Hochschulsysteme und quantitativ-strukturelle Hochschulpolitik—Differenzierung, Bologna-Prozess, Exzellenzinitiative und die Folgen. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Thies, L. (Bertelsmann S. (2015). Das beste aus zwei Welten. Duale Studiengänge als Brücke zwischen beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1220853. Thommen, J.-P. (2020). Struktur. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. https://wirtschaftslexikon.gab ler.de/definition/struktur-42435/version-265783. Thorn, K., & Soo, M. (2006). Latin American Universities and the Third Mission. Trends, Challenges and Policy Options.. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2011). Regional Innovation Systems. In P. Cooke, B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, & D. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 455–466). Edward Elgar Publishing. Tomlinson, M. (2012). Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes. Higher Education Policy, 25(4), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.26. Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., & Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/ sct044.

330

Literature

Turner, G., Weber, J. D., & Göbbels-Dreyling, B. (2011). Hochschule von A-Z. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. von Humboldt, W. (2019). Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin. In Idee und Wirklichkeit einer Universität (pp. 229– 241). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848076-011. Vorley, T., & Nelles, J. (2009). Building Entrepreneurial Architectures: a conceptual interpretation of the Third Mission. Policy Futures in Education, 7 (3), 284–296. Walitzek-Schmidtko, E. (2014). Das duale Original—Vom Stuttgarter Modell zur Dualen Hochschule Baden-Württemberg. D13—Das DHBW Magazin. Ward, E., & Hazelkorn, E. (2012). Engaging with the Community. In S. Bergan, E. EgronPolak, J. Kohler, L. Purser, & M. Vukasovi´c (Eds.), Handbook on Leadership and Governance in Higher Education. Berlin: Raabe Verlag. Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting Identities, Blurring Boundaries: The Changing Roles of professional Managers in Higher Education. Center for Studies in Higher Education, 62 (10), 1–9. Wieland, J. (2008). Die Stakeholder-Gesellschaft und ihre Governance: Management, Netzwerke, Diskurse. Metropolis-Verlag. Wilkesmann, U. (2016). Teaching matters, too. Different ways of governing a disregarded institution. In L. Leišyt˙e & U. Wilkesmann (Eds.), Organizing Academic Work in Higher Education. Teaching, learning and identities. (pp. 33–54). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Wilkesmann, U. (2019). Methoden der Hochschulforschung—Eine methodische, erkenntnisund organisationstheoretische Einführung. N. Burzan, P. Eisewicht, & R. Hitzler (Eds.). Verlagsgruppe Beltz. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2012). Hochschule als Organisation (U. Wilkesmann & C. J. Schmid (eds.)). Springer VS. Wissenschaftsrat. (2010a). Empfehlungen zur Differenzierung der Hochschulen (Drs. 10387– 10). Wissenschaftsrat. (2010b). Empfehlungen zur Rolle der Fachhochschulen im Hochschulsystem (Drs. 10031–10). http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/10031-10.pdf. Wissenschaftsrat. (2013a). Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung des dualen Studiums (Drs. 3479– 13; Empfehlungen, Stellungnahmen, Positionspapiere). http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/ download/archiv/3479-13.pdf. Wissenschaftsrat. (2013b). Perspektiven des deutschen Wissenschaftssystems (Drs. 3228–13). Wissenschaftsrat. (2016). Wissens- und Technologietransfer als Gegenstand institutioneller Strategien (Drs. 5665–16; Positionspapier). Wissenschaftsrat. (2017). Strategien für die Hochschullehre (Drs. 6190–17; Positionspapier). Wissenschaftsrat. (2018). Empfehlungen zur Hochschulgovernance (Drs. 7328–18; Empfehlungen). https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/7328-18.pdf. Witte, J. K. (2006a). Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing Adaptations of European Higher Education Systems in the Context of the Bologna Process. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS). Witte, J. (2006b). Die deutsche Umsetzung des Bologna-Prozesses. Politik Und Zeitgeschichte, 48, 21–27.

Literature

331

Wolter, A. (2016). Der Ort des dualen Studiums zwischen beruflicher und akademischer Bildung: Mythen und Realitäten. In U. Faßhauer & E. Severing (Eds.), Verzahung beruflicher und akademischer Bildung. Duale Studiengänge in Theorie und Praxis. (pp. 39–60). Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung. http://www.bibb.de/veroeffentlichungen. Yarime, M., Trencher, G., Mino, T., Scholz, R. W., Olsson, L., Ness, B., … Rotmans, J. (2012). Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: Towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustainability Science, 7, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publishing. Zabeck, J., Zimmermann, M., Deißinger, T., Gefäller, I., Müller, W., Walter, U., & Winter, A. (1995). Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der Berufsakademie Baden-Württemberg (J. Zabeck & M. Zimmermann (eds.)). Deutscher Studien Verlag. Zechlin, L. (2017). Governance als Führungshandeln. In Führen in Hochschulen (pp. 33–49). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16165-1. Zhang, Y. (2016). Das Studienmodell an der dualen Hochschule in Deutschland und seine Adaption in China. Verlag Dr. Kovaˇc, Hamburg. Ziegele, F., Roessler, I., & Mordhorst, L. (2016). Hochschultyp im Wandel? Zur zukünftigen Rolle der Fachhochschule im deutschen Hochschulsystem. In J. Cai & H. Lackner (Eds.), Jahrbuch Angewandte Hochschulbildung 2016. Deutsch-chinesische Perspektiven und Diskurse. (pp. 159–174). Springer VS. Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The Rise Of University’s Third Mission. In J. Enders, H. de Boer, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe (pp. 81– 101). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0.