Valorisation is at the centre of many debates on the future of academic research. But valorisation has largely become narrowly understood in terms of universities’ economic contributions through patenting, licensing, spin-off formation and technology transfer. This emergent restrictive definition of universities’ societal impacts is a worrying development, overlooking the potential of universities’ knowledge in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS). Our hypothesis is that HASS disciplines’ disadvantage compared to the hard sciences (lesser policy attention and funding for commercialisation) arises because HASS stakeholders are not sufficiently salient as stakeholders to universities. Using case studies of three policy experiments, we argue that universities’ responsiveness to stakeholders does not evolve simply and functionally but in response to the networks of relationships in which they are situated. This has important implications for how stakeholder research is used in higher education research, and for the design and implementation of policies to improve universities’ societal contributions.

In this article we compare the mechanisms for funding higher education institutions across a set of OECD countries. First, some data on public and private funding levels are presented. The article then discusses two important trends: (i) the increased presence of cost sharing and (ii) the move towards performance-based funding. We show where countries differ in terms of the fees paid by students and the financial support received by students. Using the degree of output orientation and the degree of centralization as dimensions to classify the various countries’ funding mechanisms, differences may be shown between countries. Reforms in funding approaches, inspired by new public management thinking, are discussed. One such reform is the introduction of performance agreements that increasingly underlie the public budget of universities. We focus on the drivers of the reforms and the question of whether these reforms actually matter for the performance of national higher education systems—for instance on the issue of student completion rates.

Living labs (LLs) have emerged as an interface for higher education institutions to collaborate with companies, citizens, non-profit and government organizations to address a variety of problems around social challenges and sustainable development. In this systematic literature review, we summarize the existing knowledge on how universities shape and manage the LLs they are associated with and how they align with their core missions of education and research and—in particular—their social missions. Following PRISMA guidelines for a systematic literature review (SLR), we analyzed journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters published between 2008 and 2020, capturing 93 university-governed LL experiences from across the world. Our findings show that LLs are developing from bottom-up initiatives, often at the fringe of higher education institutions, towards more self-standing entities implementing strategies to undertake social outreach activities. LLs require their host universities to intensify the relationships with their stakeholders and work on capacity building and focus on inter- and transdisciplinary research methodologies. Finally, our literature review points to the need for further research on the hybrid governance approaches displayed by LLs, particularly looking at the roles and responsibilities of academics involved in managing LL initiatives.

Increasingly, governments have introduced elements of performance in the funding mechanisms for their higher education institutions. One particular development is the rise of Performance Agreements (PAs), which are contracts signed between funding authorities and individual universities or colleges. The key characteristics of the PAs in place in several OECD countries are summarized before turning to the Netherlands, where an experiment with PAs was recently (2016) concluded. The question is whether this experiment improved performance in the higher education system, where ‘performance’ is understood in terms of the students’ graduation rates, the quality of teaching and learning and the diversity in the provision of education and research. What has been achieved in these areas? And what can be learned from the Dutch performance agreements experiment in general?

More and more governments have started to introduce elements of performance in the funding mechanisms for their higher education institutions. An example is a performance agreement: a contract signed between the funding authority and an individual higher education provider. In the Netherlands, a policy experiment involving performance agreements was concluded in 2016. We analyse whether the agreements actually have helped achieve the goals of improving student completion rates, educational quality and increasing the diversity in educational offerings. We present some indicators relating to these goals and discuss what can be learned from the performance agreements experiment in the Netherlands.