126
V. R. Vargas et al.
up activity at national level (Vargas et al. 2019a) and possibly internationally.
Although individual stakeholders can facilitate organisational change, this becomes
more powerful when stakeholders organise themselves and work together. Collaboration between stakeholders can create formal or informal networks. Networks may
be understood as fluid organisations and the interactions between their members tend
to change over time. Even in the cases where there are formal structures, networks
work differently in practice compared to what might be expected of them. However,
there have been some advances in the academic literature which show how network
characteristics can facilitate the effectiveness of the network and its aim.
Higher education institutions have been labelled in the literature as loosely coupled
systems (Godemann et al. 2014). In simple terms, this refers to the dynamics within
organisations that result in elements affecting each other suddenly, occasionally and
indirectly (Godemann et al. 2014). Due to these characteristics, Godemann et al.,
conclude that stakeholder engagement in higher education institutions is particularly challenging due to its fluidity (2014). In addition, academic freedom allows
academics to make decisions about their engagement with their preferred topics
and specific stakeholders. This means that sustainable development is likely to be
difficult to implement through top down approaches only (Vargas et al. 2019a). Top
down approaches refer to practices or policies actively promoted by senior leadership
who are at the top of the hierarchy in an institution and represent common forms of
organisational structures. Therefore, it is crucial to look at how networks could be
developed to help drive bottom up change.
Traditionally, networks were not thought of as entities requiring formal leadership and governance models to function (Provan and Kenis 2008). More recently,
the literature that is focused on networks shows that networks do require a form of
leadership and benefit from clear governance structures suitable for the characteristics of the network (Provan and Kenis 2008). The appropriate model may depend
on network characteristics such as the number of members and density (Provan
and Kenis 2008). Density refers to the number of actual connections or interactions between members of the network compared to the total number of connections between network members that are possible (Scott and Carrington 2014).
The networks as presented in the sustainable development policy frameworks for
higher education in the UK have low density (Vargas et al. 2019a). As a result, it is
unlikely that this type of network could benefit from shared governance and leadership (Vargas et al. 2019a). Exploring network characteristics could, therefore help
improve networks.
One of the few studies, so far, that has looked at this phenomenon in the context of
sustainable development implementation in higher education is Vargas et al. (2019a).
This paper focused on the stakeholder networks mentioned in the UK’s national
higher education policy frameworks. The study found that sustainable development
networks in higher education as presented in the policy frameworks are vulnerable and fragile (Vargas et al. 2019a). The reasons for this are a lack of vocabulary
pertaining to funding routes, low network density and high centrality of few members
(Vargas et al. 2019a).
V. R. Vargas et al.
up activity at national level (Vargas et al. 2019a) and possibly internationally.
Although individual stakeholders can facilitate organisational change, this becomes
more powerful when stakeholders organise themselves and work together. Collaboration between stakeholders can create formal or informal networks. Networks may
be understood as fluid organisations and the interactions between their members tend
to change over time. Even in the cases where there are formal structures, networks
work differently in practice compared to what might be expected of them. However,
there have been some advances in the academic literature which show how network
characteristics can facilitate the effectiveness of the network and its aim.
Higher education institutions have been labelled in the literature as loosely coupled
systems (Godemann et al. 2014). In simple terms, this refers to the dynamics within
organisations that result in elements affecting each other suddenly, occasionally and
indirectly (Godemann et al. 2014). Due to these characteristics, Godemann et al.,
conclude that stakeholder engagement in higher education institutions is particularly challenging due to its fluidity (2014). In addition, academic freedom allows
academics to make decisions about their engagement with their preferred topics
and specific stakeholders. This means that sustainable development is likely to be
difficult to implement through top down approaches only (Vargas et al. 2019a). Top
down approaches refer to practices or policies actively promoted by senior leadership
who are at the top of the hierarchy in an institution and represent common forms of
organisational structures. Therefore, it is crucial to look at how networks could be
developed to help drive bottom up change.
Traditionally, networks were not thought of as entities requiring formal leadership and governance models to function (Provan and Kenis 2008). More recently,
the literature that is focused on networks shows that networks do require a form of
leadership and benefit from clear governance structures suitable for the characteristics of the network (Provan and Kenis 2008). The appropriate model may depend
on network characteristics such as the number of members and density (Provan
and Kenis 2008). Density refers to the number of actual connections or interactions between members of the network compared to the total number of connections between network members that are possible (Scott and Carrington 2014).
The networks as presented in the sustainable development policy frameworks for
higher education in the UK have low density (Vargas et al. 2019a). As a result, it is
unlikely that this type of network could benefit from shared governance and leadership (Vargas et al. 2019a). Exploring network characteristics could, therefore help
improve networks.
One of the few studies, so far, that has looked at this phenomenon in the context of
sustainable development implementation in higher education is Vargas et al. (2019a).
This paper focused on the stakeholder networks mentioned in the UK’s national
higher education policy frameworks. The study found that sustainable development
networks in higher education as presented in the policy frameworks are vulnerable and fragile (Vargas et al. 2019a). The reasons for this are a lack of vocabulary
pertaining to funding routes, low network density and high centrality of few members
(Vargas et al. 2019a).