Given their small scale, limited range of programmes, constrained local capacity to absorb new knowledge or innovations and often distinct missions (Benneworth & Dahl Fitjar, 2019), a key question for rural or regional HEIs is what constitutes success and how their impact and performance should be measured.
For such institutions, traditional evaluation models focused on research output, international rankings or student numbers are often of limited relevance. Their impact typically extends beyond narrow economic indicators such as multipliers or technology spillovers, which tend to be modest in rural contexts (Charles, 2016).
Instead, contributions are often non-standardised, qualitative and long-term, making them difficult to capture and quantify using conventional metrics like spin-off companies or patents. The links between university activities and community outcomes are often indirect and complex. Moreover, they are largely overlooked or undervalued in international rankings, which continue to prioritise research excellence and global visibility over regional relevance (Taieb, 2024).
Regional campuses frequently generate value by building social infrastructure, which means enhancing the quality of life, community resilience and regional identity, without necessarily producing immediate or measurable economic growth. Scholars therefore advocate for a shift away from standardised, codifiable indicators towards approaches that capture relational dynamics and social processes between academics, students and local practitioners (Benneworth et al., 2024; Taieb, 2024).
The third mission framework provides a valuable lens for evaluating these broader contributions, with its emphasis on community engagement, regional development and knowledge transfer. Nevertheless, measuring third mission activities such as societal impact and territorial engagement remains challenging (Maral & Çetin, 2024; Marrocu et al., 2022).
A systematic literature review (2000–2021) of third mission evaluation in European universities found no commonly accepted methodology. Despite extensive research, there is still a lack of standardised indicators and coherent evaluation frameworks, leaving existing approaches fragmented and challenging to apply across diverse institutional and regional contexts (Taieb, 2024).