The matrix was piloted by partner institutions Stiftelsen Högskolan i Jönköping (JU), Munster Technological University (MUT), Institut Mines-Télécom Business School (IMT-BS), University Industry Innovation Network (UIIN) and University of Bucharest (UB).
What is the Engagement Mapping Matrix?
The matrix captures:
- Value co-creation: educators working with external partners on course design or projects.
- Outbound collaboration: students learning off-campus through placements or fieldwork.
- Inbound collaboration: external experts coming onto campus to teach or mentor.
It is designed as both a self-assessment tool for educators and a practical framework for universities to embed engagement into career recognition and development processes.
How Did Universities Test It?
At University of Bucharest, a focus group of ten leaders, HR staff, and teachers completed the matrix using real examples: courses with industry guests, counselling projects with private funders, and innovative programmes like Chemistry Goes Outdoors. They highlighted its alignment with institutional goals:
“The existence of such a matrix is in line with the development objectives of the institution, and the items included are highly relevant in assessing teacher engagement.”
Participants suggested adding indicators for pedagogical innovation, mentoring, and interdisciplinary collaboration to fully reflect educators’ diverse work.
At Munster Technological University (MTU), semi-structured interviews with academic, HR, and support staff revealed strong support for the concept. One participant described it as:
“A potential treasure chest that we can call on for interview preparation.”
Others emphasised that it must remain simple and clear to gain wide adoption. The matrix was praised for its potential to document engagement activities that often go unrecorded:
“It is hugely important to document and evidence this, and the matrix provides that opportunity.”
Concerns about privacy and data usage were raised, with participants stressing the need for clear guidelines on who sees the data and how it is used.
At UIIN, an online session with fourteen participants – including academic staff, researchers, department heads, and project managers – tested two versions of the matrix. Feedback confirmed its value in fostering collaboration between academia and industry:
“It is a very useful matrix, and with some help in the wording of how to fill it in for teachers with a choice, it could help a lot in measuring the degree of engagement between academia and industry through the programs specifically designed for it.”
Participants appreciated its clarity and alignment with institutional practices. The matrix was seen as a practical tool to recognise and promote educator engagement, supporting more structured and strategic collaborations that benefit both students and external partners.
Overall, participants highlighted its potential to facilitate stronger partnerships, enhance teaching relevance, and create clearer records of engagement activities that often remain informal or invisible within traditional academic evaluation systems.
At IMTBS, an interactive workshop engaged 12 educators and staff from diverse disciplines. The feedback was clear: the matrix is a useful self-assessment tool with broader institutional potential:
“It is as a valuable tool for educators to track and evaluate their engagement activities independently.”
The group emphasised the need for clear examples, intuitive design, and integration into institutional frameworks to ensure adoption.
Key Takeaways Across Labs
- Ease of use is non-negotiable. The simpler and clearer the matrix, the greater its impact.
- Examples drive clarity. Without them, users struggle to apply it meaningfully.
- Privacy and purpose must be explicit. Clear data policies build trust and engagement.
- Institutional support is crucial. As one participant noted, alignment with strategy drives success:
“This aligns with our strategy and commitment to our region.”
- Potential impact is high. The matrix can spotlight engagement work often invisible in formal assessments, supporting educator development and institutional goals.
What’s Next?
Participants recommended:
- Developing it as an interactive digital tool with guided prompts and drop-downs.
- Piloting it as a voluntary self-assessment tool before wider rollout.
- Linking it to career progression, accreditation, and strategic goals to maximise relevance and adoption.
These Testing Labs showed that while recognising educator engagement resonates strongly, implementation will succeed only if the matrix is user-friendly, meaningful, and backed by institutional commitment.
As final refinements are made, universities move closer to recognising the real-world impact educators create every day – an impact that deserves to be seen, valued, and built upon.
Authors: Nina Brankovic & Medisa Focic