Systematic review evaluates community engagement's role in branding for universities in Tanzania, highlighting challenges and implications.
Many universities across the global are facing increasing pressure to demonstrate relevance in the community beyond their traditional teaching and research roles. Community engagement (CE) has therefore emerged as a strategic activity through which higher education institutions build relationships with key stakeholder while enhancing institutional branding. However, while CE is highly institutionalised in universities in the Global North, its strategic integration into branding practices remains underdeveloped in many African Global South education systems. This study reviews the literature on the relationship between CE and university branding with particular attention to evaluating conceptual models and theoretical frameworks used to explain the CE–branding relationship across higher education contexts. It also compares CE practices between Global North and South universities and analyses contextual factors—specifically policy frameworks, leadership commitment, resource availability, and institutional capacity that mediate or moderate the translation of CE activities into brand image outcomes. A systematic review approach was employed to analyse 38 peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2024. The findings reveal that stakeholder theory and related frameworks dominate the literature; most conceptual models are derived from the Global North and inadequately account for the institutional constraints faced by universities in resource-constrained environments. The review further demonstrates that community engagement practices in Global South universities are often fragmented and compliance-driven, limiting their strategic contribution to institutional branding. This review study proposes an Integrated Legitimacy–Capability model to explain how CE generates brand value under resource constraints and contributes to African higher education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sing'ambi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: