Reimagining engagement: A new framework for university engagement

In an era where universities are being called upon to do more than produce research and graduates, the concept of the “engaged university” has gained renewed urgency. Yet engagement is not a singular idea — it takes multiple forms and is shaped by institutional identity, regional dynamics, and strategic vision. Our report draws on one of the most comprehensive empirical studies of university engagement in Europe to propose a new typology of engagement and offer strategic recommendations for institutional leaders.

External Engagement is not optional

Universities have always had a public role, first in education and later in advancing knowledge through research. Over the past two decades the idea of engagement has transformed fundamentally. The question is no longer whether universities should engage, but how, with whom and to what end. Third-generation universities are expected to commercialise research, co-create regional development strategies, tackle global challenges and act as civic anchors in times of disruption.

Three shifts drove this. The knowledge economy repositioned universities as engines of innovation, discovering next-generation technologies and developing talent for industry. Their concentration of ambitious graduates, research capability and infrastructure made them natural anchor institutions for entrepreneurial ecosystems. And a growing emphasis on societal impact means governments and funders now require clear evidence that public investment in higher education translates into public benefit.

The word engagement now covers everything from licensing intellectual property and launching spin-outs to hosting public lectures or partnering with local councils. That breadth reflects genuine societal relevance, but it also obscures the need for strategic clarity. Engagement can no longer be left to enthusiastic individuals operating at the fringes; leading institutions are formalising it through dedicated leadership roles, internal incentive structures and new organisational units.

Four ways universities engage

Empirical analysis of academic behaviour across 68 European universities reveals four distinct engagement models: the Research-Intensive University, the Engaged Urban University, the Entrepreneurial University and the Civic University. Each reflects a dominant logic for organising relationships with external stakeholders, and each demands different leadership strategies, incentive structures and partnership mechanisms. Most institutions display traits of more than one, but each model offers a reference point for aligning mission, resources and partnerships.

Research-Intensive Universities

They engage through global research excellence and knowledge transfer, with joint R&D projects, IP licensing, spin-offs and research consultancy. They excel at securing major grants and commercialising new-to-the-world discoveries, and they operate within elite international networks. Their weakness is local: they often exhibit the lowest overall engagement intensity of the four types, and a limited connection to local communities and public services risks the accusation of being out of touch with the society around them.

Engaged Urban Universities

These universities anchor their strategy in city-based collaboration, co-creating solutions with local authorities, cultural institutions, SMEs and social enterprises across applied research, skills development, policy advice and urban planning. The model is resource-intensive and demands high relational capacity. Its characteristic risk is an unclear identity: competing with research-intensive institutions in the rankings carries an opportunity cost that can leave local engagement underdeveloped.

Entrepreneurial Universities

Entrepreneurial Universities take the broadest view of innovation, spanning research commercialisation, student entrepreneurship, spin-outs and entrepreneurial education. They show the strongest propensity for industry engagement of the four types and treat both staff and students as potential founders. Typically younger and smaller, they may lack research volume but frequently outperform on regional economic engagement, student employability and spin-off creation, with success resting on leadership vision, institutional agility and a culture that tolerates calculated risk.

Civic Universities

Civic Universities root engagement in public purpose, extending beyond the city to marginalised communities, underserved regions and national policy. They score highest of all four on social engagement, working with charities, schools, local authorities and grassroots organisations, and treat engagement as genuinely two-way: the university contributes expertise and learns from lived community experience. Often located in regions with lower GDP and weaker business R&D, they receive less attention in international rankings while playing a crucial role in social mobility and cohesion.

What shapes how a university engages

The engagement typology of a university is heavily influenced by their institutional and regional context.  For example, size and research intensity matter: larger institutions have more resources for technology transfer offices, policy units and industry liaison teams, but their scale can create distance from local actors. Smaller teaching-led universities have fewer resources yet are often more agile and more deeply embedded in local ecosystems.

External conditions matter too. National policies linking research funding to societal impact have prompted institutions to take engagement seriously, though poorly designed incentives can overemphasise commercialisation and favour STEM disciplines at the expense of civic engagement rooted in SHAPE subjects. Regional economies shape what is possible, and national laws on intellectual property, academic spin-outs and conflicts of interest can constrain engagement regardless of institutional intent.

Making engagement a leadership responsibility

The most engaged universities treat engagement as a core leadership responsibility rather than a peripheral activity. That shows up in dedicated senior appointments, such as the University of Cambridge’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Innovation, which places enterprise and knowledge exchange inside the core leadership structure. More fundamentally, it means engagement forms part of how success is defined at the highest level.

Strategic design follows. The Australian National University ran a university-wide consultation to build a shared understanding of impact across disciplines and stakeholder groups, producing a unified strategy with new governance models and staff development pathways. The emphasis was not on more engagement but on alignment. Reforming incentives completes the picture: Eindhoven University of Technology’s Recognition and Rewards framework formally values societal impact, interdisciplinary collaboration, team science and open science within career development and promotion, signalling that engagement sits inside core expectations of academic performance rather than beyond them.

Engagement as institutional identity

Engagement is neither synonymous with commercialisation nor confined to urban, research-intensive institutions. It is multidimensional, and it is essential. Treating it as a strategic institutional function rather than a peripheral activity driven by individual academics means embedding it in mission, governance and reward systems, whether it takes the form of co-created research, social innovation, regional development or entrepreneurship education. University leaders balancing reputation, financial sustainability and public value need a framework for deciding which kind of engaged university they intend to be. Download Reimagining Engagement from UIIN for the full typology, the institutional case studies from KU Leuven, Bristol, VUB and Wageningen, and the complete recommendations for leaders and policymakers.

Ready for more?

Our podcast episode, Connecting academia, government, and industry for innovation, provides practical examples of how universities can engage with external stakeholders to drive regional innovation. We talked with Nicholas Haskins, Chief Operating Officer of the New South Wales Smart Sensing Network, about bridging the gap between academia, industry, and government, to turn research into real-world impact.

Frequently asked questions

What is an engaged university?

An engaged university treats collaboration with business, government and society as a core institutional function rather than an optional extra. Engagement is embedded in its mission, governance and reward systems, spanning co-created research, social innovation, regional development and entrepreneurship education, rather than depending on the initiative of individual academics.

What are the four types of engaged university?

The Research-Intensive University engages through global research excellence and knowledge transfer. The Engaged Urban University anchors its strategy in city-based collaboration. The Entrepreneurial University builds innovation and venture-creation ecosystems. The Civic University roots engagement in public purpose and social transformation, scoring highest of the four on social engagement.

Is university engagement the same as commercialisation?

No. Commercialisation, through licensing and spin-outs, is one form of engagement among many. Community-based research, adult education, public health initiatives, policy contribution, curriculum co-design and regional development all count, and policy frameworks that reward only commercial outcomes tend to favour STEM disciplines while undervaluing civic engagement.

What is a civic university?

A civic university ties its mission explicitly to social responsibility, inclusion and public value, working with charities, schools, local authorities and grassroots organisations on systemic challenges. Engagement is treated as two-way: the institution contributes expertise while learning from the lived experience of its communities, acting as an anchor for regional social mobility.

How can universities encourage academics to engage?

By changing what gets recognised. Academics respond to what is rewarded, so engagement needs a place in promotion and tenure criteria, workload models and internal funding. Where reward systems prioritise publications and grant income alone, engagement stays marginal regardless of how prominently it features in the strategic plan.

Arno Meerman (author) is the Founder and CEO of UIIN.
Todd Davey (author) is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at IMT Business School