Higher education institutions and stakeholder analysis: Theoretical roots,development of themes and future research directions

Abstract

Theoretical roots of higher education institutions (HEIs) and Stakeholder Analysis date back to mid-1990s and research was focussed on the role of HEIs in society and sustainable development. While various studies have been published about ‘triple-helix model’ - bringing government, academia, and industry closer, the concept of HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis needs a comprehensive review of the work carried out till date. Bibliometric and content analyses were performed, incorporating citations from Scopus’ database during last 25 years. Thematic mapping was carried out and evolving trends were identified. Findings and analysis of this research disclosed that during the last 25 years there has been a growing interest among scholars towards Stakeholder Analysis and HEIs. It was also noted that majority of research pursuits concentrated in western countries such as USA and UK, while Africa, Asia and South America were under-represented. This work will not only lay a foundation for academics to carry out further research, but it will also give new insights to the policymakers which would enable them to device strategies aiming at enhanced participation of universities/HEIs in the local, regional, and national development.

Keywords

Higher education institution university stakeholders thematic mapping bibliometric analysis content analysis

Introduction, rationale and context for this research

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are expected to address the expectations and needs of variety of stakeholders, who may be an individual or a group or who can influence or get influenced by the goals of the organization (Maric, 2013). They include internal stakeholders such as faculty and administration staff, to external stakeholders such as parents, students, policymakers, and employers (Al Shaqsi and Syed, 2022; Asiedu et al., 2020; Gachie, 2020). Since the 1990s, due to the socioeconomic development, HEIs are expected to interact with wide range of external stakeholders to stimulate societal enhancements and economic development (Syed et al., 2022). It necessitates the HEIs to build working relationship with the non-academic world such as public authorities, industry, and society in general (Gachie, 2020). It encompasses transfer of knowledge, innovative activities, outreach, and continuing education (Maroufkhani et al., 2017). The literature on HEIs and stakeholders usually centers on: (i) adapting of stakeholder theory to higher education perspective (Matlay, 2009); (ii) identifying HEIs’ stakeholders, their features and value they add to higher education sector (Effeney, 2020); and (iii) Analyzing perspectives of HEI stakeholders (Kesting et al., 2018). HEIs play a crucial part in society, as they are liable for scientific investigation and transmission of knowledge to grow community (Cerver Romero et al., 2021). The survival of HEIs is warranted by its stakeholder relationships (Ressler and Abratt, 2009; McAdam et al., 2012). Hence, to develop associations with stakeholders, it is essential to formulate inclusive plans and policies that guarantee engagement and teamwork with stakeholders (Miller et al., 2014).

The ever growing relevance of HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis has led researchers across the world to scrutinize aspects such as linkage between HEIs and the environment (Maric, 2013), stakeholder relationships in higher education (Kettunen, 2015), e-learning higher education stakeholder analysis (Wagner et al., 2008), value creation by using stakeholder approach in higher education (Langrafe et al., 2020), stakeholder management in HEIs (Mainardes et al., 2010), sustainable development stakeholder networks in HEI (Falqueto et al., 2020), stakeholder involvement in sustainability reporting in HEIs (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2018), stakeholders and their expectations from HEIs (Mainardes et al., 2010), internationalization of quality of HEIs (Kesting et al., 2018), stakeholders of Public HEIs (Ntim et al., 2017), sustainability and sustainable HEIs (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017; Godemann et al., 2014; Velazquez et al., 2006), influence of stakeholders involved in implementation of strategic in HEIs (Falqueto et al., 2020), quality assurance of stakeholder relationships (Lyytinen et al., 2017), HEI-loyalty, reputation and multi stakeholder approach (García-Rodríguez and Gutiérrez-Taño, 2021), CRM strategy in HEIs (Khashab et al., 2022). As we did not come across any comprehensive review of HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis, we decided to use bibliometric analysis together with content analysis (Castriotta et al., 2019) to comprehend the research focused on this topic. The aim is to contribute to the further growth of the research field and to assist future research and development of HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis. The study aims to find answers to the following research questions.

RQ 1: How has the publication trend in HEIs and stakeholder analysis progressed?

RQ 2: What structures characterize the literature on HEIs and stakeholder analysis?

RQ 3: What are the potential future directions of research on HEIs and stakeholder analysis?

Bibliometrics is sub-section of informetric which allows to estimate impact of scientific publication and their diffusion of info using statistical tools (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017; Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019). Bibliometric analysis enables scholars to inspect and examine huge data sets much larger in contrast to systematic literature reviews, together with greater rigor, transparency, replicability, and scientific soundness (Dada, 2018). Bibliometric analysis has gained prominence among scholars across all domains as it permits them to conduct descriptive analysis using bibliographic records (Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Secinaro and Calandra, 2021). In bibliometric studies a content analysis is done to examine specialization of authors and thematic progression of the domain (Baima et al., 2020; Martínez-Climent, Zorio-Grima and Ribeiro-Soriano, 2018),. Consequently, “hidden patterns” describing the domain are identified and future research directions are proposed (Cappellesso and Thomé, 2019; Daim et al., 2006). As bibliometric analysis is widely used by scholars in management area, we decided to use this technique to review the chosen research topic (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019; Bornmann and Marewski, 2019; Gora, 2019; Kim et al., 2021). The work of (Effeney, 2020) was the inspiration to perform a detailed review of the literature on stakeholder analysis and HEIs through bibliometric analysis by using tools like keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-citation analysis, co-authorship analysis, and cluster analysis. A comparative summary of is exhibited in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of previous bibliometric studies related to higher education.

Basis of comparison	(Effeney, 2020)	Our study
Focus of the study	Work integrated learning	Stakeholder analysis
Author keywords	Work integrated learning, WIL, risk, university, stakeholders, higher education	Stakeholder analysis, higher education institutions, bibliometric analysis, content analysis
Time period	2012–2017	1996–2020
Database	EBSCO	Scopus
Articles analyzed	44	469

While the key focus of (Effeney, 2020) was stakeholder analysis regarding one aspect of HEIs - Work Integrated Learning (WIL), this chapter incorporates stakeholder analysis and HEIs on a whole. Furthermore, (Effeney, 2020) considered only a 5-year timeline spanning across 2012–2017, this chapter adopts a 25-year timeline (1996–2020). Also, the number of Scopus indexed publications analyzed in this chapter is much higher in number when compared to the number of publications extracted from EBSCO database and analyzed by (Effeney, 2020).

This study will add to theory as well as practice in given manner. First, logical insights in the growth of entrepreneurship development and higher education institutions (HEIs) and Stakeholder Analysis in last 25 years are exemplified, to offer a comprehensive summary of this area. Second, the interrelated and multidimensional facets of higher education institutions (HEIs) and Stakeholder Analysis research area is found, and evolving trends and theme are found, which are then used to find future directions of research. Third, directorial steps, founded on current study, are recommended to policymakers and practitioners about encouraging and developing higher education institutions (HEIs) and Stakeholder Analysis. This article is designed in the following manner: Section 2 explains the research methodology used in this study, and prime research questions investigated. Section 3, findings of the study are exemplified and précised. Section 4 carries conclusion which contains brief outline of the contributions made, limitations of the current research and future research directions.

Research methodology

With regard to reviewing the literature on a particular topic, recognizing a database which is most appropriate is the primary task (Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016). Scopus database was chosen because it covers greater number of journals and articles in comparison to others, including WoS - Web of Science (Liu et al., 2013). Moreover, it offers a wide-ranging overview of research published globally which allows a comprehensive bibliographic review (Durán-Sánchez et al., 2019).

Bibliometric reviews are recommended by several authors as they enable researchers to not only acquire thorough understanding of existing knowledge, but also synthesize it effectively to present a comprehensive overview of the progression of the research field (Cisneros et al., 2018). Furthermore, bibliometric study along with content analysis also allows researchers to ascertain the conceptual, social and intellectual structures of the literature (Ronda-Pupo, 2017; Tunger and Eulerich, 2018). Moreover, identification of current trends and future research directions are also facilitated (Li et al., 2017). Figure 1 illustrates the framework of bibliometric review of literature, carried out by incorporating Performance Analysis and Content Analysis. VOS viewer and Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017) were the software packages utilized to create visualizations of the bibliometric networks. Cluster analysis (Syed et al. 2022) was also undertaken to identify the structures characterizing the literature on the multifaced, interconnected research topics.

Figure 1.

Research framework of this study.

The initial topic search in Scopus database resulted in identification of 1303 articles published. Subsequent filtration involved using parameters such as timeline (last 25 years, 1996–2020), publication stage, type of article, English language, and related fields. This resulted in removal of nearly thousand articles. The remaining 469 articles were utilized to carry out bibliometric analysis. Search strategy, data retrieval process, and statistical summary of the work on stakeholder analysis and HEIs indexed in Scopus database are elucidated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Data retrieval process, search strategy, and statistical summary of the work carried out.

Analysis and findings

RQ 1: How has the publication trend in HEIs and stakeholder analysis progressed?

To probe RQ1, publication trend in SCOPUS database over the last 25 years on HEIs and stakeholder analysis was analyzed by categorizing it in accordance with year, country, authors and journals.

Publication by year

Figure 3 exhibits the number of publications and mean citations per publication in last 25 years on Stakeholder Analysis and HEIs. The gradual increase in number of publications is an indication of increasing interest garnered by this field among researchers. Furthermore, mean citations too exhibit an upward trend, but with non-linear progression. The peaks could be attributed to seminal works published by (Larsen and McInerney, 2002; Miller, Mcadam and Mcadam, 2014; Ntim et al., 2017) within this research domain and widely cited by other authors.

Figure 3.

Articles published on HEIs and Stakeholder analysis between 1996 and 2020.

Publication by country

Figure 4 signifies that Stakeholder Analysis and HEIs has gained interest from researchers across the world. However, majority of research pursuits in this field is still concentrated within the western countries. USA and UK top this chart, with the former way ahead of the latter and other countries in terms of total number of publications in this field. It is unsurprising to see USA leading the list as it has pioneered many innovative practices in higher education, and with stronger stakeholder engagement, since 1990s (Grimaldi et al., 2011). This has led to a greater number of research projects carried out and published in various journals. While the UK and Australia have been steadfast in investigating and publishing in this field of research, other countries are yet to catch up. While North American and European countries mark their presence in the list of Top-20 countries, the other regions – Africa, Asia and South America are clearly under-represented with just five countries making it to the list. This could be ascribed to lack of evolution within higher education domain in the post-independence era, resulting in HEIs still working in silos with scant stakeholder engagement.

Figure 4.

Top 20 countries publishing on HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis.

Publication by author

Table 2 illustrates various parameters such as number of publications (TP), citations received (TC), h-index and m-index, which define researchers’ contribution to the literature and their quality of output (Kent Baker et al., 2020). Mcadam R tops the table with 7 publications and 314 citations, closely followed by Miller K and Mcadam M with 6 and 5 publications each. Alves H and Raposo M rank among top-5 with equal number of 4 publications each. However, Miller K and Mcadam M and are way ahead than the rest in terms of citations with former having 310 citations and the latter receiving 289 citations. In terms of h-index, the same order of top 5 authors is noted with Mcadam R and Miller K leading the table (h-index 6). The remaining authors in top 5 have h-index of 5 and 4. These authors have focused on themes such as stakeholder engagement, sustainable development, strategic planning, triple helix, and internationalization.

Table 2.

Top 20 authors ordered by total number of publications (TP).

Author	NP	TC	h_index	m_index	PY_start
Mcadam R	7	314	6	0.38	2006
Miller K	6	310	6	0.55	2011
Mcadam M	5	289	5	0.50	2012
Alves H	4	130	4	0.40	2012
Raposo M	4	130	4	0.40	2012
Secundo G	4	100	4	0.36	2011
Kinash S	3	68	3	0.43	2015
Wiek A	3	158	3	0.33	2013
Allen S	2	9	2	0.29	2015
Barragan S	2	4	1	0.17	2016
Bosse Da	2	42	2	0.22	2013
Brundiers K	2	68	2	0.22	2013
Casablancas-Segura C	2	17	2	0.33	2016
Chatti Ma	2	124	2	0.29	2015
Crane L	2	60	2	0.33	2016
Elias A A	2	34	2	0.11	2004
Erogul ms	2	4	1	0.17	2016
Gonzalez S	2	4	1	0.17	2016
Harrison J S	2	42	2	0.22	2013
Heitor M	2	34	2	0.33	2016

Publication by journal

Top-20 journals according to number of publications (TP) on HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis are illustrated in Table 3. Other parameters such as m-index, h-index, total number of citations (TC) and Scopus Quartile Ranking included in the table offer a broader overview.

Table 3.

Top-20 journals with most publications on HEIs and Stakeholder analysis.

Source	Scopus quartile	TP	TC	h-index	m-index	PY-start
Journal of cleaner production	Q1	10	431	10	0.625	2006
International journal of sustainability in higher education	Q1	9	117	7	0.500	2008
Sustainability (Switzerland)	Q1	9	198	6	0.667	2013
Studies in higher education	Q1	8	76	4	0.444	2013
Business Horizons	Q1	7	352	7	0.412	2005
Business and society review	Q2	6	43	4	0.333	2010
Higher education	Q1	6	223	5	0.417	2010
Education and Training	Q1	5	63	5	0.556	2013
Journal of business research	Q1	5	72	4	0.500	2014
Science and public policy	Q1	5	59	4	0.211	2003
Accounting, auditing and accountability journal	Q1	4	183	4	0.500	2014
Evaluation and program planning	Q2	4	19	2	0.167	2010
Higher education research and development	Q1	4	105	4	0.333	2010
International journal of management in education	Q2	4	20	2	0.154	2009
Journal of environmental assessment policy and management	Q3	4	38	4	0.286	2008
Journal of management development	Q1	4	37	3	0.273	2011
Journal of studies in international education	Q1	4	75	4	0.160	1997
Quality assurance in education	Q2	4	98	4	0.190	2001
Quality in higher education	Q1	4	37	3	0.200	2007
Technological forecasting and social change	Q1	4	87	3	0.333	2013

All journals in this list barring one, are ranked Q1 or Q2 which is a testimony to the fact that this field is not only garnering more interest, but also witnessing high quality research being produced and published by top journals. Journal of Cleaner Production leads the table in terms of total number of publications, closely followed by and International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education and Sustainability. Furthermore, Journal of Cleaner Production tops the table with highest number of citations (411) and corresponding h-index (10), followed by International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education and Sustainability. However, the latter exhibits highest m-index among the top 4 in the table. Also, newly launched journals such as Journal of Business Research and Internet and Higher Education boast of highest m-index (0.667) among the top-20, confirming increasing growth and impact in this field.

The journal growth analysis indicates that Sustainability leads the growth chart and has witnessed a rapid progress in the last 5 years with regard to publishing on HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis. It is closely followed by Studies in Higher Education and International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Furthermore, all three journals exhibit an upward slope, while Journal of Cleaner Production and Business Horizons seem to indicate stagnation with minimal growth after exhibiting a gradual upward slope over the last decade.

RQ2: What structures characterize the literature on entrepreneurial HEIs?

Conceptual structure

Analysis here focuses on identifying popular themes being explored by researchers working on HEIs and stakeholder analysis. Keyword and co-occurrence analysis are carried out because author’s keywords appropriately represent the article’s content (McAllister et al., 2022). The existence of a relationship between multiple concepts in an article is demonstrated by the keyword co-occurrence (Kent Baker et al., 2020). Usually, co-occurrence analysis is used by researchers to differentiate and classify data in management and business fields (Castriotta et al., 2019). Biblimetrix R and VOSviewer and were utilized to create and demonstrate thematic mapping of this field. Figure 5 illustrates the most popular themes.

Figure 5.

Network visualization of co-occurrence – Author keywords.

It was noted that proximity of themes to the center of the network map and to each other, increased with greater number of keyword co-occurrences. Furthermore, the size of bubble, depicting each theme, increased with a greater number of times a keyword was used by authors. Also, the different colors of links and bubbles specify distinct cluster with associated themes grouped into each of them. The following section on intellectual structure elucidates more on the related facets of clusters and their significance in development of the field of research. Thematic mapping was conducted to furnish a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the topic and provide further thorough understanding of the different subtopics explored by authors in the last 25 years (Figures 6 –8). The timeline was classified into three periods by identification of two cut-off points based on similar number of publications in each category. Below sub-sections illustrate the thematic evolution of this multi-disciplinary field.

Figure 6.

Thematic evolution of the topic; first time slice (1996–2011).

Figure 7.

Thematic evolution of the topic; second time slice (2012–2016).

Figure 8.

Thematic evolution of the topic; third time slice (2017–2020).

Thematic mapping

The timeline for thematic mapping is classified into three phases (1996–2013, 2014–2018, 2019–2020) by identifying two cut-off points based on similar number of publications in each category. Hence, each phase has a varying duration of years.

Time period 1 (1996–2013)

The first time slice (Figure 6) witnessed articles which were dedicated mainly to sustainable development, society and HEIs. The concept of ‘second academic revolution’ was introduced by (Etzkowitz, 1998) to illustrate the involvement of universities in societal and economic development of a region. During this period, sustained efforts were put in by the policy makers at governmental level to bring the academia and industry closer; resulting in conceptualization of ‘triple-helix model’ depicting collaboration among university, industry and government (Etzkowitz, 2003). The direct impact of these changes was seen through increased number of university spin-offs and these developments led to the academic sector imbibing industrial research goals and complementing the industry by carrying out research which could be commercialized effectively (Toole and Czarnitzki, 2010; Thursby and Thursby, 2011). This in turn led to inspiring some academics to translate their research into business start-ups, which garnered lot of attention from researchers to further probe into different characteristics of academic entrepreneurship (Grimaldi et al., 2011; Mars and Rios-Aguilar, 2010), university spin-offs (Boh et al., 2003; Klofsten and Jones, 2000; Wright, 2014) and university patents (Mowery and Sampat, 2005; Van Praag and Versloot, 2007) from individual/human aspects.

Time period 2: 2014–2018

While research areas such as human factors and HEIs held their fort, newer research topics such as gender/female and students as key stakeholders in higher education began to emerge during the period defined by second time slice (Figure 7). This was the period of increased emphasis on implementing third mission in the business model of HEIs (Audretsch, 2014; Pugh et al., 2016) introduced the concept of ‘entrepreneurial society’ which signifies the role of entrepreneurship in driving economic development, rather than knowledge or financial capital. This led to HEIs assuming a vital role in transforming human capital into entrepreneurial capital, enabling the contribution to and development of social capital on a whole. Hence, a more comprehensive approach is noted in this time slice when compared to the previous one, with increased focus on higher education and students (Ebrashi, 2013). Another interesting aspect in this group is the emergence of decision-making as field of research, which was primarily due to the fact that a stronger emphasis was laid on stakeholder engagement (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2018).

Time period 3: 2019–2020

The last time slice (Figure 8) witnessed spurt in the number of articles on organization and management, due to structuring and commercialization of HEIs and making them an integral part of economic and societal development (Clauss et al., 2018). Also, an increased number of publications highlighting role of innovative teaching approaches with regard to specific issues such as region, gender and technology were noted during this time period (Laudano et al., 2019; Shah et al., 2020; Williamson, 2018). This testifies a comprehensive growth of the research field in the last half a decade, encompassing broader aspects and niche topics. Furthermore, the key stakeholders of an HEI – students, are directly impacted by the development of HEIs and positively impacts their creative thinking (Dromereschi, 2018). Thus, HEIs could be seen as production units of not only knowledge, put also entrepreneurial capital which effectively contribute to the economic and societal development of a region (Audretsch and Belitski, 2017; Clauss et al., 2018).

Social structure

It can be clearly seen in Figure 9 that the USA and UK have spearheaded globally for establishing research collaboration in this field, with other European countries following suit. However, a closer examination in this analysis suggests that a major portion of the collaboration is either localized or it is amidst specific countries and authors. A drawback of this is that although the number of publications can increase, yet it necessarily doesn’t result in increase of citations, and it also leads to weaker total link strength. This is the case seen with authors such as Mcadam R and Miller K, wherein lesser collaborative efforts hampered their academic metrics in terms of citations and total link strength.

Figure 9.

Co-authorship across countries.

Table 4 further suggests that most of the collaborations are initiated by the authors residing in the western world. This could be accredited to the fact that the funding necessary for undertaking any research pursuits is sufficiently provided for the research scholars based in the USA, UK and other European countries.

Table 4.

Corresponding author’s country affiliation.

Country	Articles	Frequency	SCP	MCP	MCP ratio
USA	100	0.2653	91	9	0.09
United Kingdom	58	0.1539	48	10	0.17
Australia	36	0.0955	32	4	0.11
Canada	15	0.0398	11	4	0.27
Netherlands	14	0.0371	10	4	0.29
Italy	13	0.0345	8	5	0.39
Germany	12	0.0318	9	3	0.25
Spain	12	0.0318	10	2	0.17
China	8	0.0212	6	2	0.25
New Zealand	8	0.0212	6	2	0.25
Ireland	7	0.0186	6	1	0.14
Brazil	5	0.0133	2	3	0.60
Finland	5	0.0133	4	1	0.20
Malaysia	5	0.0133	4	1	0.20
Portugal	5	0.0133	3	2	0.40
South Africa	5	0.0133	5	0	0.00
Sweden	5	0.0133	3	2	0.40
Belgium	4	0.0106	1	3	0.75
Norway	4	0.0106	2	2	0.50
Austria	3	0.0080	2	1	0.33
Hong Kong	3	0.0080	3	0	0.00
Hungary	3	0.0080	1	2	0.67
India	3	0.0080	3	0	0.00
Saudi Arabia	3	0.0080	2	1	0.33
Turkey	3	0.0080	3	0	0.00

SCP = Single Country Publication; MCP = Multiple Country Publication; MCP Ratio = MCP/Total No of Articles.

Intellectual structure

The intellectual structure of a research domain can be examined by assessing the connectivity between influential articles and authors based on the number of citations, known as co-citation analysis (Singh and Malik, 2022). The co-citation analysis displays the intellectual structure by grouping articles into homogeneous groups (clusters), which can also be recognized as important themes in the research domain. The four prominent research clusters in the present co-citation analysis were created using VoSviewer and keeping a citation threshold of 5, with the option of removing isolated nodes. Papers in each cluster were studied to build a common theme (refer to Figure 10); a conventional approach in bibliometric analysis research (Tian et al., 2018).

Figure 10.

Development of the four key clusters – content analysis findings.

Cluster 1: Stakeholder engagement

This cluster focused on the publications regarding HEIs and stakeholder engagement. The researchers discussed the possible impact and the increasing need for the sustainable development. The policy changes and practices adapted in the higher education sector were highlighted globally (Ceulemans et al., 2015). Also, the impact of stakeholder engagement on social responsibility and development was also highlighted (Godemann et al., 2014).

Cluster 2: Stakeholder management

Management of HEIs key stakeholders is the focus of this cluster. The researchers have presented their views on the role of strategic planning in HEIs (Ramos et al., 2015). As expected, case studies of universities based in western countries are most published. Furthermore, the implementation of triple helix model across regions, and managing key stakeholders such as government and corporates have also been extensively studied (Laplume et al., 2008; Ressler and Abratt, 2009).

Cluster 3: Stakeholder relationship

The integration of entrepreneurialism in HEIs is the primary focus of this cluster (Etzkowitz, 2003; Goethner et al., 2012; Wright, 2014). Moreover, extensive research works have been undertaken across different countries/regions/contexts on the impact and development of entrepreneurial intention among the stakeholders of an HEI; mainly the student community (Ozaralli and Rivenburgh, 2016; Maroufkhani et al., 2017). Furthermore, various works on role of educational programs in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders of HEIs towards sustainable development of a society have also been published (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017; Lozano et al., 2013; Stouten et al., 2018).

Cluster 4: Stakeholder perspective

The stakeholder perspective on governance (Pugh et al., 2016) and graduate employability (Koe et al., 2012) have primarily been discussed by this cluster. The impact of higher education at the micro-level on students from varying contexts was a critical point of focus for majority of the studies (Gianiodis and Meek, 2019; Guerrero et al., 2016; Packham et al., 2010). Furthermore, the motives and dynamics of internationalization of HEIs constitute a seminal theme within this cluster (Zaleniene and Pereira, 2021).

RQ 3: What are the probable future directions of research on HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis?

This paper highlights the importance of higher education institutions (HEIs) and stakeholder relationship. Future researchers can explore strategic plans that formally stimulate and institutionalize stakeholder engagement and management in higher education institutions (HEIs).

The synergy of interests and conflicts among different stakeholder groups in higher education institutions (HEIs) can also be investigated. Analysis and prediction of superior conditions for reliable and fair relation between higher educational institutions (HEIs) and their stakeholders can be done so that more value can be created for all the stakeholders. Future research can also be taken up to assess the externalities of higher education institutions (HEIs) and their influence on stakeholder relationships, evaluate possible dissimilarities in strategic goals of higher education institutions (HEIs), possibly impacting the significance of contributions among various stakeholders.

Future research can also include dialogues with policymakers and academic leaders involved in the designing and execution of policy frameworks. Also, stakeholder perceptions, expectations and needs in regard to higher education institutions (HEIs), can be evaluated so that a better coordination can be brought and value creation can be done for all involved. Scholars can explore measures taken by of higher education institutions (HEIs), to foster transformative learning atmospheres in which students collaborate, with regional partners and ascertain real life innovative solutions to sustainable challenges. Cross national and cross-cultural studies will also give new insights.

Contributions, limitations and conclusion

Findings and analysis of this research disclosed that during the last 25 years there has been a growing interest among scholars towards Stakeholder Analysis and higher education institutions (HEIs); though the mean citations exhibited an upward trend, but there was non-linear progression. It was also noted that majority of research pursuits concentrated in western countries such as USA and UK, while Africa, Asia and South America were under-represented. USA was leading in the list as it had stronger stakeholder engagement and it pioneered in innovative practices in higher education. The noteworthy impact is limited to few authors only. The most impactful works were identified, which were core to the growth of this research area and had regional impact. The thematic mapping illustrated that articles were dedicated to sustainable development of society and HEIs, involvement of HEIs in societal and economic growth of region, collaboration among university - industry - government, academic entrepreneurship in HEIs, and human and social capital in HEIs. The content analysis resulted in identification of four prominent research clusters around HEIs: stakeholder engagement, stakeholder management, stakeholder relationship and stakeholder perspective.

This paper thus adds to the field of HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis in multiple ways. Firstly, publications across last 25 years were examined with rigor and classification of existing literature was performed based on year, country, and journal. Secondly, research collaboration in this field and their country affiliation were identified. Thirdly, conceptual structure of the current study was mapped with conspicuous themes by means of co-occurrence and citation networks, allowing scholars to avoid inertia and further disintegration of this field. Fourthly, prominent research clusters were identified through research cluster illustrations, enabling researchers to take further decisions on spending funds and time to become part of prevailing clusters or to develop new categories.

The major limitations of this study are: (a) analysis deliberates only on Scopus database, and (b) selection of keyword is based on our prior understanding and knowledge about HEIs and Stakeholder Analysis gained by an initial review of prevalent literature; some keywords might have been overlooked or they might appear in future. More research based on this study can be conducted by scrutinizing research articles indexed in other databases like Web of Science, ProQuest, Open Access Journals, Academia, and Research Gate etc., Also, an integrated and comparative research between these databases can also be deliberated.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Raihan Taqui Syed

References

Al Shaqsi

Syed

(2022) Massive open online courses and entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions. Technology and Entrepreneurship Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 187–206. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-84292-5_8

Albort-Morant

Ribeiro-Soriano

(2016) A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators. Journal of Business Research 69(5): 1775–1779. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054.

Aria

Cuccurullo

(2017) bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11(4): 959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Asiedu

Anyigba

Ofori

, et al. (2020) Factors influencing innovation performance in higher education institutions. The Learning Organization 27(4): 365–378. doi: 10.1108/TLO-12-2018-0205.

Audretsch

(2014) From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer 39(3): 313–321. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1.

Audretsch

Belitski

(2017) Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer 42(5): 1030–1051. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8.

Baier-Fuentes

Merigó

Amorós

(2019) International entrepreneurship: a bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15(2): 385–429. doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y.

Baima

Forliano

Santoro

, et al. (2020) Intellectual capital and business model: a systematic literature review to explore their linkages. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Emerald Publishing Limited, 3, 653–679. doi: 10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0055.

Blanco-Portela

Benayas

Pertierra

(2017) Towards the integration of sustainability in higher eeducation institutions: a review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 166, 563–578. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252.

10.

Boh

Rubini

Pollio

(2003) What are the trade-offs of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. Journal of Technology Transfer 43(4): 661–669. doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6.

11.

Bornmann

Marewski

(2019) Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation. Scientometrics 120(2): 419–459. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03018-x.

12.

Cappellesso

Thomé

(2019) Technological innovation in food supply chains: systematic literature review. British Food Journal. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd., 121, 2413–2428. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0160.

13.

Castriotta

Loi

Marku

(2019) What’s in a name? Exploring the conceptual structure of emerging organizations. Scientometrics 118(2): 407–437. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2977-2.

14.

Cerver Romero

Ferreira

JJM

Fernandes

(2021) The multiple faces of the entrepreneurial university: a review of the prevailing theoretical approaches. Journal of Technology Transfer 46(4): 1173–1195. doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09815-4.

15.

Ceulemans

Lozano

Alonso-Almeidadel

(2015) Sustainability reporting in higher education: interconnecting the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability. Sustainability 7(7): 8881–8903. doi: 10.3390/su7078881.

16.

Cisneros

(2018) Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics. Springer International Publishing, 117, 919–951. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2889-1.

17.

Clauss

Moussa

Kesting

(2018) Entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder-based conceptualisation of the current state and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Technology Management 77(1–3): 109–144. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2018.091726.

18.

Dada

(2018) A Model of Entrepreneurial Autonomy in Franchised Outlets: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 206–226.

19.

Daim

Rueda

Martin

(2006) Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(8): 981–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.04.004.

20.

Dromereschi

(2018) The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition 18(20): 49–81. doi: 10.29358/sceco.v0i20.278.

21.

Durán-Sánchez

Rama

arcía

(2019) Mapping of scientific coverage on education for entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Enterprising Communities 13(1–2): 84–104. doi: 10.1108/JEC-10-2018-0072.

22.

Ebrashi

(2013) Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Responsibility Journal 9(2): 188–209. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013.

23.

Effeney

(2020) Risk in work integrated learning: a stakeholder centric model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 42(4): 388–403. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2019.1701852.

24.

Etzkowitz

(1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy 27(8): 823–833. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6.

25.

Etzkowitz

(2003) Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information 42(3): 293–337. doi: 10.1177/05390184030423002.

26.

Falqueto

JMZ

Hoffmann

Gomes

(2020) Strategic planning in higher education institutions: what are the stakeholders’ roles in the process? Higher Education 79(6): 1039–1056. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00455-8.

27.

Ferrero-Ferrero

Fernandez-Izquierdo

Muñoz-Torres

(2018) Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19(2): 313–336. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-06-2016-0116.

28.

Gachie

(2020) Higher education institutions, private sector and government collaboration for innovation within the framework of the triple helix model. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 12(2): 203–215. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2019.1631120.

29.

García-Rodríguez

Gutiérrez-Taño

(2021) Loyalty to higher education institutions and the relationship with reputation: an integrated model with multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. Routledge. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2021.1975185.

30.

Gianiodis

Meek

(2019) Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer 45: 1167–1195. doi: 10.1007/s10961-019-09742-z.

31.

Godemann

Bebbington

Herzig

(2014) Higher education and sustainable development: exploring possibilities for organisational change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 27(2): 218–233. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1553.

32.

Goethner

Obschonka

Silbereisen

(2012) Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: economic and psychological determinant. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.002.

33.

Gora

(2019) The Link between Decision Making Process and Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis. Management and Economics Review. EDITURA ASE, 177–191.

34.

Grimaldi

Kenney

Siegel

(2011) 30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40(8): 1045–1057. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005.

35.

Guerrero

Urbano

Fayolle

(2016) Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics 47(3): 551–563. doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4.

36.

Kent Baker

Pandey

Kumar

(2020) A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research 108: 232–246. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025.

37.

Kesting

Clauss

Moussa

38.

Kettunen

(2015) Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management 21(1): 56–65. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2014.997277.

39.

Khashab

Gulliver

Ayoubi

(2022) Analysing enterprise resources for developing CRM framework in higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35(6): 1639–1657. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2021-0421.

40.

Kim

Kang

Lee

(2021) Evolution of digital marketing communication: bibliometric analysis and network visualization from key articles. Journal of Business Research 130: 552–563. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.043.

41.

Klofsten

Jones

(2000) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in europe. Small Business Economics 14(4): 199–309.

42.

Koe

W-L

Sa’ari

Majid

(2012) Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among millennial generation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40: 197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.181.

43.

Langrafe

Barakat

Stocker

, et al. (2020) A stakeholder theory approach to creating value in higher education institutions. Bottom Line 33(4): 297–313. doi: 10.1108/BL-03-2020-0021.

44.

Laplume

Sonpar

Litz

(2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management 34(6): 1152–1189. doi: 10.1177/0149206308324322.

45.

Larsen

KRT

McInerney

(2002) Preparing to work in the virtual organization. Information and Management 39(6): 445–456. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00108-2.

46.

Laudano

Zollo

Ciappei

, et al. (2019) Entrepreneurial universities and women entrepreneurship: a cross-cultural study. Management Decision 57(9): 2541–2554. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2018-0391.

47.

(2017) A bibliometric analysis of research on haze during 2000–2016. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24(32): 24733–24742. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-0440-1.

48.

Linnenluecke

Marrone

Singh

(2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management 45(2): 175–194. Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.1177/0312896219877678.

49.

Liu

Zhang

Guo

, et al. (2013) Full-Text Citation Analysis: A New Method to Enhance Scholarly Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(9): 1852–1863. doi: 10.1002/asi.22883.

50.

Lozano

Mulder

et al. (2013) Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production 48: 3–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034.

51.

Lyytinen

Kohtamäki

Kivistö

(2017) Scenarios of quality assurance of stakeholder relationships in finnish higher education institutions. Quality in Higher Education 23(1): 35–49. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2017.1294410.

52.

Mainardes

Alves

Raposo

(2010) An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a university. Journal of Management and Strategy 1(1): 76–88. doi: 10.5430/jms.v1n1p76.

53.

Maric

(2013) Stakeholder analisys of higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 11(2): 217–226. doi: 10.7906/indecs.11.2.4.

54.

Maroufkhani

Mosey

Wright

(2017) The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy 49(1): 1045–1057. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7.

55.

Mars

Rios-Aguilar

(2010) Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. Higher Education 59(4): 441–460. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9258-1.

56.

Martínez-Climent

Zorio-Grima

Ribeiro-Soriano

(2018) Financial return crowdfunding: literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14(3): 527–553. doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0511-x.

57.

Matlay

(2009) Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 16(2): 355–368. doi: 10.1108/14626000910956100.

58.

McAdam

Miller

McAdam

(2012) The development of University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: lessons for the future. Technovation 32(1): 57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2011.08.001.

59.

McAllister

Lennertz

Atencio Mojica

(2022) Mapping A discipline: a guide to using VOSviewer for bibliometric and visual analysis. Science and Technology Libraries 41(3): 319–348. doi: 10.1080/0194262X.2021.1991547.

60.

Miller

Mcadam

(2014) The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R and D Management 44(3): 265–287. doi: 10.1111/radm.12064.

61.

Mowery

Sampat

(2005) The bayh-dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield: The Economics of R&D, Innova tion, and Technological Change . Wiley Online Library, 233–245. doi: 10.1007/0-387-25022-0_18.

62.

Ntim

Soobaroyen

Broad

(2017) Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: the case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 30(1): 65–118. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1842.

63.

Ozaralli

Rivenburgh

(2016) Entrepreneurial intention: antecedents to entrepreneurial behavior in the U.S.A. and Turkey. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6(1): 3. doi: 10.1186/s40497-016-0047-x.

64.

Packham

Pickernell

(2010) Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis. Education + Training 52(8–9): 568–586. doi: 10.1108/00400911011088926.

65.

Pugh

Hamilton

Jack

(2016) A step into the unknown: universities and the governance of regional economic development. European Planning Studies 24(7): 1357–1373. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1173201.

66.

Ramos

Caeiro

Hoof

(2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.110.

67.

Ressler

Abratt

(2009) Assessing the impact of university reputation on stakeholder intentions. Journal of General Management 35(3): 35–45. doi: 10.1177/030630700903500104.

68.

Ronda-Pupo

(2017) The effect of document types and sizes on the scaling relationship between citations and co-authorship patterns in management journals. Scientometrics 110(3): 1191–1207. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2231-8.

69.

Secinaro

Calandra

(2021) Halal food: structured literature review and research agenda. British Food Journal 123(1): 225–243. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-03-2020-0234.

70.

Shah

Amjed

Jaboob

(2020) The moderating role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Economic Structures 9(1): 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s40008-020-00195-4.

71.

Singh

Malik

(2022) A systematic and bibliometric review of the financial well-being: advancements in the current status and future research agenda. International Journal of Bank Marketing 40(7): 1575–1609. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-06-2021-0238.

72.

Stouten

Rousseau

De Cremer

(2018) Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals 12(2): 752–788. doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0095.

73.

Syed

Singh

Spicer

(2022) Entrepreneurial higher education institutions: development of the research and future directions. Higher Education Quarterly 77(1): 1–26. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12379.

74.

Thursby

(2011) Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy 40(8): 1077–1083. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.009.

75.

Tian

Zhong

Wilson

(2018) A bibliometric analysis on trends and characters of carbon emissions from transport sector. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 59: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.009.

76.

Toole

Czarnitzki

(2010) Commercializing science: is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science 56(9): 1599–1614. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1192.

77.

Tunger

Eulerich

(2018) Bibliometric analysis of corporate governance research in German-speaking countries: applying bibliometrics to business research using a custom-made database. Scientometrics 117(3): 2041–2059. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2919-z.

78.

Van Praag

Versloot

(2007) What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics 29(4): 351–382. doi: 10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x.

79.

Velazquez

Munguia

Platt

, et al. (2006) Sustainable university: what can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11): 810–819. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008.

80.

Wagner

Hassanein

Head

(2008) Who is responsible for E-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders, analysis. Educational Technology & Society 11(3): 26–36. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.3.26.

81.

Williamson

(2018) Silicon startup schools: technocracy, algorithmic imaginaries and venture philanthropy in corporate education reform. Critical Studies in Education 59(2): 218–236. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1186710.

82.

Wright

(2014) Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where next? Journal of Technology Transfer 39(3): 322–334. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9286-3.

83.

Zaleniene

Pereira

(2021) Higher education for sustainability: a global perspective. Geography and Sustainability 2(2): 99–106. doi: 10.1002/pmj.