Evaluating University Engagement as Institutional Quality: Between Standardization and Systemic Integration

The incorporation of university engagement as a mandatory dimension of institutional accreditation has reconfigured the debate on quality in higher education, particularly in regulatory contexts such as Chile. This study develops a narrative review with a comparative analytical approach to examine the evaluative rationalities that structure the assessment of university engagement within national and international quality assurance frameworks. The analysis draws on Chilean regulatory documents and key international models, including the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), the HE-BCI system in the United Kingdom, the E3M Project, the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, and recent literature on the evaluation of complex university–community engagement. The findings identify three structural tensions that organize contemporary evaluative frameworks: (1) standardization versus institutional diversity, reflecting the trade-off between comparability and contextual adequacy; (2) functional reduction versus systemic transversality, associated with the treatment of engagement as a discrete function or as a cross-cutting institutional dimension; and (3) fragmented evaluation versus institutional integration, linked to the degree of articulation between engagement, teaching, research, and governance within quality assurance systems. These tensions reveal that the evaluation of university engagement is not merely a technical issue of indicator design, but a structural problem embedded in institutional architecture and governance. Based on these findings, the article proposes a systemic evaluation model structured around three interrelated dimensions: strategic purpose, relational processes, and differentiated contribution and impact across temporal scales. This model seeks to reconcile the demands for comparability with the relational and contextual complexity of university engagement, while promoting its integration within the institutional quality cycle. The study contributes to positioning the Chilean case within the international debate on the third mission and advances a conceptual framework for evaluating university engagement that moves beyond indicator-based approaches toward a systemic understanding of institutional quality.