Search

Multi-campus university systems are not a new phenomenon. In their foundational analysis of multi-campus universities in the United States published in 1971, Lee and Bowen noted that almost 40% of American students were enroled in institutions that were part of multi-campus systems. The role of these complex multi-campus systems has continued to grow, though they have received surprisingly little attention in the academic literature (Gaither, 1999). In addition to the United States, multi-campus universities have become an integral feature of higher education systems such as the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. Their emergence is either a result of predetermined efforts by policy makers or institutional leaders to spread activities across multiple geographies, or the outcome of amalgamation processes involving higher education institutions located in different localities. Yet, despite the adoption of multi-campus university systems in many jurisdictions, surprisingly little is known about the inner workings and key challenges facing these complex systems. This special issue takes an important step towards addressing this knowledge gap. In so doing, it brings together contributions emanating from a multiplicity of national higher education systems, shedding light on key aspects associated with both formal and informal structures, as well as the tensions and dilemmas facing contemporary multi-campus university systems. What is more, both conceptualisation and theorisation in and around multi-campus university systems has been largely neglected, and this is also an aspect that this special issue aims to address. Each author was free to approach a specific case(s) from a particular conceptual or theoretical perspective, thus providing a rich variety of perspectives on the complexity surrounding multi-campus university systems. Taken together, the contributions provided here underline the need for a more sophisticated conceptual and empirical analysis underpinning the emergence and development over time of multi-campus university systems. They also point to the need to approach multi-campus university systems from a more holistic and comprehensive perspective, as one of the many elements composing a complex ecosystem that includes: (1) formalised structures and arrangements, including mechanisms designed by both the state or the "superstructure" (Clark, 1983) and university leadership ("middlestructure") at various levels; (2) informal cultures and deeply institutionalised values, identities and traditions, which make each university and its respective campus constellations somewhat unique in their own right (Clark, 1992); and (3) social networks involving a multiplicity of internal and external actors or stakeholders, from whom both strategic resources and legitimacy are drawn from (Pinheiro, 2015). All in all, the contributions composing this special issue provide new insights on the inner workings of multi-campus universities, not least with respect to the multiple challenges and tensions facing both managers and academics involved with such systems.

This paper investigates historical and current developments regarding governmental policies aimed at enhancing spatial equity (access) or decentralisation of higher education provision in three countries--Australia, Canada and Norway. We then shed light on the links or interrelations between policy objectives and initiatives and institutional diversity and regional development more broadly. We found evidence of convergence trends in Norway and Canada resulting in the rise of hybrid organisational forms, as well as the critical importance of policy frameworks in either maintaining or eroding the traditional binary divide. The cross-country data suggest a rather mixed or nuanced picture when it comes to regional development. Finally, the paper identifies a number of key challenges facing the systems, suggests possible ways of tackling them and sheds light on avenues for future research.

This study examined the drivers of climate change innovations and the effects of these innovations on firm outcomes in a sample of 203 firms in the South Australian wine cluster. The results of structural equation modeling analysis suggest that absorptive capacity has a direct effect on climate change innovations, and stimulates knowledge exchanges (KEs) between firms in the cluster. KEs between firms in the cluster in turn directly affect the climate change innovations. The findings suggest a perhaps counterintuitive interrelationship between firm- and cluster-level impacts, in which KEs between firms in the cluster play a partial mediating role in the innovation process. The study further finds that climate change innovations are related to firm performance (FP) and reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs): mitigative innovations lead to greater GHG reductions while adaptive innovations impact on FP. Contributions of the findings are discussed, as are future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities, cities and the development of knowledge have gone hand in hand over the centuries, but currently there is increasing pressure front policy-makers for universities to combine art emphasis on global research excellence with a contribution to the development of the knowledge economy in their host cities. One dimension of this concerns the physical relationship between the university and business, and the design of new precincts where university activities are connected with the city. Two case studies front Australia are presented here where state governments and universities are working together to develop precincts in which research investment is coupled with urban regeneration projects and an increased focus by the universities on engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the Australian government's effort to improve its innovation process, and its influence on the economic growth and national development of the country. As explained by the author, technological innovation is found to have the capacity to regenerate the mature industries which are the core businesses of many nations. It is allegedly not just a thing that concerns with high-technology industries; rather, it also applies to the whole innovation chain reaching into production, marketing and distribution. Because of these benefits, the government has strengthened its four programs for innovation: the Management and Investment Cos. Scheme, the National Industry Extension Service, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, and the National Procurement Development Program.