While the study of European university alliances is flourishing (Gunn 2020; Lambrechts et al. forthcoming), there is far less academic interest in local university alliances and networks. As the regional scale is always thoroughly investigated in studies of university collaborations, the smallest level of analysis, namely the local scale, is, at best, overlooked and, at worst, disregarded. Nevertheless, this type of alliance or network still exists, particularly in capital cities, with some managing to sustain themselves over time - the University of London, for example, has done so since 1836. Local university alliances and networks deserve greater consideration as they are complex and thought-provoking because they involve superimposing scales and require a fine-grained analysis. In the context of Europeanisation (Irion and Volf 2023) and internationalisation (De Wit and Altbach 2021) of knowledge infrastructures, where exchanges are both more numerous and faster, the existence and sustainability of local university alliances and networks are particularly difficult to explain. In particular, it is difficult to determine whether they have a specific policy agenda through their local anchorage, which would justify stakeholders' attachment to this type of organisation.

Therefore, assessing the success of local university alliances and networks means identifying and taking into account their specific characteristics in relation to supranational university alliances and networks, the evaluation of which is already well-documented (EC 2025; Roth et al. 2025). However, there is still a need to systematise how such local organisations conceptualise and operationalise success, particularly in contexts that differ structurally and strategically from supranational initiatives. Grouping these issues, this paper aims to examine the success criteria as narrated by universities joining forces at the local level through a comparative analysis of university alliances and networks, all located in European capital cities. The empirical part of this paper will therefore answer the following questions: What are the stated objectives, and to what extent do local university alliances and networks narrate these as having been achieved (RQ)? Does interest in these alliances and networks persist over time, and if yes, how does it correlate to their perceived success (RQ’)? How does communicating on their structures help these organisations demonstrate legitimacy and accountability (RQ’’)? To answer these questions, we present a three-part analysis: first, we analyse the narratives surrounding shared policy goals and the unique self-promotion of local university alliances and networks; second, we examine their time-resistance through an analysis of their media presence; and third, we explore how they showcase their effective governance and organisational performance.

To do so, organisational theory offers us tools to focus on narratives that shape the institutional identities of local university alliances and networks and foster their legitimacy (Kohvakka 2021). Indeed, such collaborations exist in a fluid political environment where many of them are emerging, and some are dissolving. The nature of these organisations varies, and political agendas constantly influence them, making systematic analysis difficult (Vukasovic and Stensaker 2018). Local issues, especially in capital cities, add complexity and create new opportunities for participation: while local university alliances and networks may seem based on similarity, they also raise unique identities and regionalism issues (Moawad and Schendzielorz, forthcoming). Additionally, as posited by organisational theory applied to higher education, meta-organisations serve as a pivotal conduit through which members can attain legitimacy (Zapp et al. 2023). Narratives used by university alliances and networks thus become instrumental tools through which these organisations not only enable (or restrain) the activities of their stakeholders, but also articulate and legitimise their status by making sense of themselves as an institutional order where implicitly legitimating language coexists with explicit normative claims (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Fenton and Langley 2011).

Eight case studies were selected: all university alliances or networks located in EU-28 capitals, conceived to ensure a minimum level of standardisation and increase the likelihood of identifying commonalities. These are: Consórcio da Região de Lisboa do Projeto Universities Portugal – Connecting Knowledge (CRL-CK, Lisbon); Alianza 4 Universidades (A4U, Madrid and Barcelona); University of London (UoL, London); Université PSL (PSL, Paris); Brussels University Alliance (BrUA, Brussels); Accord Project (AP, Bratislava); and University Alliance Stockholm Trio (StTr, Stockholm). Despite their shared dependence on the European agenda, these alliances and networks vary in size (from approximately 40,600 to over 245,500 students and staff), date of creation (from 1836 for UoL to 2020 for CRL-CK) and structures. This increases the external validity of our comparative analysis. Sampling for this study was conducted in 2022, with updates made in 2025 to cover all EU zones: Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe and the British Isles. Notably, one of the alliances is located not only in one capital city, but also in its rival city (A4U in both Madrid and Barcelona). The qualitative content analysis conducted in this article (Mayring 2004) is based on several types of data. For the first and third parts of the analysis, all mission statements and communication outputs published by the eight case studies and accessible on their official websites were considered (N = 31). These were last retrieved on 30 August 2025. We identified the success criteria mentioned by local university alliances and networks and summarised them under a list of twelve comprehensive criteria. In addition to material issued by the alliances and networks themselves, we expanded our analysis to include press articles and releases mentioning the names of the local university alliances and networks from two years before their official creation (except for UoL, for which the analysis began on January 1st 2008, until August 14th 2025). To do so, we used the LexisNexis database to search for the full names of the eight case studies (N = 190,558) and visualised the results in Excel. We acknowledge that LexisNexis does not cover all media databases and favours the English language. Furthermore, we recognise that media coverage of higher education and research (HE&R) topics may vary across different national academic contexts. Nevertheless, we have chosen to use it as a proxy because it indicates whether public relations efforts have been successful at the local and national levels.

We find that the conditions and criteria for the success of university alliances and networks vary widely across Europe, as defined by the organisations themselves. However, these variations are more evident in the extent to which the organisations under review meet the listed criteria than in the criteria themselves. Clearly, success and failure depend on the initial policy goals, the financial resources committed and the support of local stakeholders. However, political expectations regarding the project’s local and national impact are also important, as is the expectation of a financial and symbolic return on investment. This could entail reductions in operating costs resulting from the reorganisation of structures or the pooling of certain budgets to achieve greater reach. It may also involve improved collaboration between local stakeholders within the academic community and with those from civil society or industry. Lastly, the impact may be symbolic if the university alliance or network strengthens the influence of its member universities beyond their borders – an important issue for capital cities (RQ). Organisational theory also enables us to contextualise these local university alliances and networks, and recognise that their media coverage is as much a symptom as a cause of their longevity. We are thus observing a form of the Matthew effect whereby media interest in certain organisations is sustained all the more because they are already the subject of considerable attention (RQ’). Finally, we realise that the actual, imagined or hoped-for success of a university alliance or network lies as much in the degree of organisational formalisation as in the way its structure and governance are presented (RQ’’). Well-formulated success narratives are vital for internal and external legitimacy. Ultimately, 'to survive, you must tell stories' (Eco 1995, 207).

Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. NY: Anchor Books. De Wit, H., and P. G. Altbach. 2021. “Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future.” Policy reviews in higher education 5 (1): 28-46. doi:10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898. Eco, U. 1995. The Island of the Day Before. Translated by W. Weaver. London: Secker & Warburg. EC (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, PPMI). 2025. “Report on the outcomes and transformational potential of the European Universities initiative.” Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/32313. Fenton, C., and A. Langley. 2011. Strategy as Practice and the Narrative Turn. Organization Studies 32 (9), 1171-1196. doi:10.1177/0170840611410838 Gunn, A. 2020. “The European universities initiative: A study of alliance formation in higher education.” In European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade, edited by A. Curaj, L. Deca, and R. Pricopie, 13-30. Basel: Springer International Publishing. Irion, D., and D. Volf. 2023. “Europeanisation in and through Science: Unveiling the Long-Term Dimensions of European Integration – Introduction.” Journal of European Integration History 30 (2): 205–216. doi:10.5771/0947-9511-2024-2-205. Kohvakka, M. 2021. “Justification Work in a University Merger: The Case of the University of Eastern Finland.” European Journal of Higher Education 11 (2): 197–215. doi:10.1080/21568235.2020.1870517. Lambrechts, A.A., A. Felder, A. Charret, D. Craciun, and N. Manzoni, eds. Forthcoming. Continuities, Changes and Challenges for the European Higher Education Landscape: Five years of the European Universities Initiative. Berlin: Springer. Mayring, P. 2004. “Qualitative content analysis.” In A Companion to Qualitative Research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke, 159–176. SAGE Publications. Moawad, L., and C. Schendzielorz. Forthcoming. “Knowledge Metropolises? A comparative multi-scale analysis of local university alliances in capital cities.” European Educational Research Journal. Roth, S., N. De Keyser, I. Müller-Vogt, and A. A. Canon 2025. “Designing Collaboration: Building Sustainable Communities in University Alliance CHARM-EU.” Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 20 (4), 195-218. doi:10.21240/zfhe/20-4/09. Vukasovic, M., and B. Stensaker. 2018. “University alliances in the Europe of knowledge: Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes.” European Educational Research Journal 17 (3), 349-364. doi:10.1177/1474904117724572. Zapp, M., Jungblut, J., and F. O. Ramirez 2021. “Legitimacy, stratification, and internationalization in global higher education: the case of the International Association of Universities.” Tertiary Education and Management 27 (1), 1-15. doi:10.1007/s11233-020-09062-0.