This article proposes a framework to enhance sustainability in university-employer alliances, suggesting better alignment of corporate governance practices and social responsibility.
University–employer alliances have expanded as a strategy to foster innovation, employability, and knowledge transfer; however, their growth often results in instrumental arrangements oriented toward short-term metrics (agreements, hours, deliverables) that weaken curricular transformation and Social Responsibility. This article proposes a governance architecture to design and audit sustainable Collaborative Education, understood as a technologically mediated multi-actor network organized by a shared principle of Social Responsibility. The method operates in two moves: (i) a conceptual ordering that uses the substance–accidents distinction and a formative telos to subordinate organizational and technological means to the educational purpose; and (ii) the translation of concepts into decision domains (who decides, with what evidence, under what risks, and with what safeguards), positioning Technological Mediation as governance infrastructure rather than a neutral support. The proposal delivers three managerial outputs: (a) a hierarchy of seven support entities (metaphysical question, Social Responsibility, projects and strategies, institutional management, institutional development, stakeholders, and benefits); (b) governance principles (primacy of purpose, multi-actor accountability, justifiable distribution of benefits and risks, and deliberative traceability); and (c) a compact matrix and checklist applicable through document auditing and platform design review, without requiring field data collection. Taken together, the framework shows how employer-side corporate governance can align incentives, rules of evidence, and data use to enable co-responsibility and avoid capture, strengthening the sustainability of collaboration over time across organizational contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reséndiz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: