A systematic review of empirical studies on trust between universities and society

ABSTRACT

The perception of universities as trustworthy institutions has been challenged by heightened public distrust in science and public institutions. In this context, understanding trust relationships between higher education institutions and society could provide vital intelligence to safeguard and grow the increasingly disrupted higher education sector. The article presents a systematic review of empirical studies that focus on trust in higher education institutions. It aims to map research trends and empirical gaps to provide insights into the state of research in this area. The review found that most research has examined trust within the university context, with significantly less attention on trust between the universities and the broader societies they serve. Within the latter, trust relationships with business and industry domains have received greater empirical attention than those with community and government. These findings have implications for purposeful and meaningful trust-based capacity and capability building at individual and institutional levels.

KEYWORDS:

• Trust
• engagement
• universities
• industry
• community

Introduction

Since their inception, universities have long been perceived as trustworthy institutions with credentials and merits. The perception of trust could largely link to the universities’ core missions and functions that fall primarily in the realms of education, knowledge production and sciences in most societies. However, the higher education sector has been exposed to numerous forces of disruptions in recent decades, these include, and are not limited to, technology disruptions and questioned status quo. In the context of heightened public distrust in science and public institutions, universities may not be immune. Edelman (2020, 2022), for example, has found and reported a rapid decline in public trust in government, business, public institutions and the media. People around the world are less trusting of the richest and the poorest groups in society (2022; Edelman, 2020). Furthermore, trust has been found to be weakened by persistent societal issues, such as inequalities and perceived low performance or lack of responsiveness from public institutions (Niedlich, Kallfaß, Pohle, & Bormann, 2021). In this societal and political climate, more attention should be given to better understanding how universities and academics could enhance trust, at institutional and individual levels, through practical and strategic university engagement efforts with the broader societies in which they are situated.

Trust is a belief in someone or something that is reliable, good, honest and effective (Oxford Learner Dictionary, 2022). In general, scholars have conceptualised trust in different dimensions (Li, 2007). For example, conceptualisation of trust encompasses trust at the general level (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994), interpersonal trust (Lewicki et al., 1998), inter-group (Schilke & Cook, 2013) and institutional level (Kramer, 1999). At the interpersonal level, trust is often understood as ‘confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct’ (Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 439). Researchers tend to link personal emotions and experiences such as vulnerability in defining trust. For example, trust is a ‘willingness to make oneself vulnerable when relying on others’ (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007, p. 347), and the action where one risks making something important to us vulnerable to the actions of someone else (Li, 2007). While interpersonal trust is placed on personal motives and actions, institutional trust is placed in an institution’s structures and systems, its code of procedure, achievements and control mechanism (Lepsius, 2017). Hence, institutional trust is linked to ‘an institution’s transparency, fairness, effectiveness and efficiency’ (Niedlich, Kallfaß, Pohle, & Bormann, 2021, p. 126) and ‘perceived organisational support, distributive and procedural justice, and types of systems’ (Searle, 2013, p. 11). Furthermore, trust can be understood in terms of characteristics, which often include reliability (dependability, trustworthiness), capabilities (relevant knowledge and skills), integrity (ethics and fairness) and benevolence (kindness and generosity) (Colquitt & Salam, 2009).

While there is vast literature on trust, the difficulty in defining and measuring trust has also been highlighted (Bachmann & Zaheer, 2013; Lyon, Möllering, & Saunders, 2015). Much academic discussion acknowledges that trust is multilevel, intangible and fluid (Costa, Fulmer, & Anderson, 2018). Some scholars have argued for a broader, multidisciplinary approach to understanding the meaning and dynamic of trust (Gillespie & Hurley, 2013), while others have argued for the need to establish narrower definition(s) of trust in order to properly locate their inquiry relevant to their specific areas of research (Lewicki & Polin, 2013; Searle, 2013). Our view is that researchers working in the universities could and should play a leading role in unpacking trust, using empirical techniques to explore how to strengthen the roles and functions of trust in societies. This article aims to address this research gap by examining issues of trust and distrust pertaining to the knowledge workers (i.e., academics, scientists, researchers and professional staff) and the knowledge-based institutions (i.e., universities). Systematically reviewed trust-based social research can provide vital intelligence and know-how in order to safeguard and grow the increasingly disrupted higher education sector. By reviewing existing empirical knowledge on trust between universities and societies, we aim to provide a holistic understanding of and new insights on this topic. We were interested in the following research questions:

• What are the empirical studies on trust between higher education institutions and the broader society?

• What are the key findings regarding trust between higher education institutions and the broader society?

• What are the research gaps and implications for higher education?

We structure the article into four sections. First, we provide a methodological explanation of the systematic literature review we conducted. Second, we report a quantitative overview of the literature, mapping research topics on trust in higher education. This overview includes identifying areas of research that have received greater scholarly attention, and those that have received lesser or no attention. Third, we provide a qualitative analysis of studies that focus on the relationships between universities and the broader society. We outline different types and their key characteristics based on the four characteristics suggested by Colquitt and Salam (2009), namely, reliability, credibility, integrity and benevolence. Finally, we conclude the paper by identifying the research gaps and recommendations for future research focusing on universities and societal relations.

Methodology

We conducted extensive literature searches on two multidisciplinary databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), in October 2021. We generally followed a systematic approach to literature review through comprehensive, structured searching, selecting and synthesising the literature (Grant & Booth, 2009). To identify relevant literature in Scopus and WoS, we used the search string: trust AND (‘higher education’ OR universit* OR college OR ‘tertiary education’).

Only articles published from 2000 were included to give a representative cross-section of thinking that has informed the sector over the past twenty years. In the identification stage, an article was included when it: (1) is peer-reviewed, written in English, and (2) includes trust and higher education or university/universities in the title, abstract, or keywords. Scopus search returned 4046 results; WoS search returned 2511 results. All results were exported to data management software (Endnote). After excluding duplications, the master database had 6534 articles.

Next, in the screening stage, we first read all the articles’ titles and abstracts. We looked for articles that appeared to discuss trust in the context of higher education broadly understood. The majority of articles were excluded, resulting in 384 articles that indicated a discussion of trust in higher education. We then screened the content of these articles and only kept those that had a substantial discussion of trust in higher education. A substantial discussion often includes an empirical investigation using the concept of trust, or a discussion of trust emerging from empirical research, or an essay that focuses on trust. The screening left 297 articles in the database. Figure 1 summarises the literature screening process.

Figure 1. The review process.

We categorised the articles into two main groups: one focusing on trust in the relationships internal to the university (e.g., students’ trust in their lecturers and learning platforms), the other on trust in the relationships with individuals and organisations external to the university (e.g., businesses and industries). Our interest lied in the trust relationship between universities and their external stakeholders; the latter group broadly includes individuals or organisations outside of universities, such as governments, civil society organisations, businesses and industries. After identifying 85 articles that fit the second group, we conducted a thorough, qualitative review of these articles. The next section presents an overview of the articles reviewed.

The identification and screening steps were undertaken primarily by one of the authors (Author 1) based on agreed steps and criteria. Both authors were in frequent discussions and used a shared folder to keep track of the progress to ensure consistency and reliability of the review. Data analysis was done by both authors: each of us reviewed all the articles before discussing and agreeing on the common themes reported in this paper.

Findings

Overview of the articles

An overview of the articles from the screening phase is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of reviewed literature.

Category				%
Geographical location
Africa		14		5%
America - North		53		18%
America - South		9		3%
Asia - East & Southeast		50		17%
Asia - other		11		4%
Australia - NZ		26		9%
Europe		43		14%
Middle East		18		6%
UK		26		9%
Comparative		27		9%
Unspecified		20		7%
Method of study
Quantitative		169		57%
Qualitative		72		24%
Mixed		24		8%
Essay/Conceptual		27		9%
Literature review		5		2%
Type of trust relationship
Internal relationships		212		71%
Academics - academics		40		13%
Academics - learning environment		3		1%
Academics - university		17		6%
Academics - HE staff		18		6%
Students - academics		27		9%
Students - learning environment		31		10%
Students - students		16		5%
Students - university		60		20%
External relationships		85		29%
University - alumni		5		2%
University - community		5		2%
University - government		6		2%
University - industry partner		44		15%
University - public		16		5%
University - training partner		3		1%
University - university		6		2%
Total		297		100%

In terms of geographical location, the majority of studies focus on the US and Canada contexts (18%), followed by those on East and Southeast Asian contexts (17%). Studies focusing on the western European context account for the third highest number (14%). In terms of the study method, more than half of the studies (57%) are quantitative; nearly one-quarter of them (24%) are qualitative; nearly one-tenth (8%) employed mixed or other methods. Overall, the result shows an overwhelming majority of articles, almost nine out of ten, were empirical.

In terms of the type of trust, more than two-thirds of articles (71%) focus on trust in internal relationships within the university; nearly one-third (29%) focus on trust in the relationships between the higher education sector and external stakeholders. Within the first group – internal relationships – two major groups of trust relationships emerged: academics’ trust and students’ trust. Academics’ trust is discussed in terms of the relationships between academics with academics, or academics’ trust in their university or working environment (including professional staff). Out of the 212 articles, more than one third (36%) of the articles focus on trust among university employees, including academics and professional staff, or between university employees with the university as an organisation. Students’ trust is discussed in terms of the relationship between students and academics (9%), students and university (20%), among students themselves (5%), and students’ trust in the learning environment, which often involves general trust of people around or technology used in learning and assessment (10%).

Within the second group – external relationships – we identified a range of trust relationships between universities and external stakeholders, including alumni (2%), community (2%), government (2%), industry partner (15%), the public (5%), training partner (1%), and other universities (1%). Most papers focus on relationships between universities and industry partners using different terminologies to refer to the relationship, such as collaboration, knowledge transfer, or partnership.

Our search of external-facing university relationships discovered 61 empirical studies, 20 conceptual studies and 4 reviews of literature. While conceptual studies enrich our understanding of trust, the discussions are often generic and draw on theoretical formulations. Therefore, our review only focused on empirical studies to ground findings and discussions on empirical evidence.

The empirical studies generally address trust relationships on two levels. The first largely focuses on the institution-institution level of trust. For example, these papers tend to frame the university as a whole organisation when interacting with external stakeholders, rather than the people working within the institutions who engage and interact with the external stakeholders. The second type of empirical paper focuses on individual-to-individual level trust. For example, trust between individual academics, scholars, scientists or professionals, the last of which includes those who often represent science or academic research. However, in some cases the two levels of empirical trust analysis are not clearly distinguished. For example, when an individual perspective (such as a leader of a research group or CEO of a company) is used as a proxy to understand trust at an institutional level. Yet, these two levels provide an interesting analytical lens that we will use to present our findings later in this article.

Qualitative review of articles focusing on university-societal relationships

Compared with business and corporate sectors, little research in our review has focused on trust within the higher education systems and non-commercial sectors (Niedlich, Kallfaß, Pohle, & Bormann, 2021). Although there exist many commissioned reports on community engagement and place-based engagement, only 2% of screened literature focused on trust between universities and the community, and 2% on universities and government. These numbers suggest that an increase in the number of proper empirical studies on trust in university-community and university-government relations would enhance and deepen our understanding of the contemporary dynamics between the universities and their place in changing and increasingly complex societies.

Our review found that most studies have adopted Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (1995, p. 712) definition of trust as ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party’. A few empirical studies identified that education plays a role in fostering trust (Borgonovi & Burns, 2015; Niedlich, Kallfaß, Pohle, & Bormann, 2021). Other studies asserted the importance of trust in knowledge institutions, such as universities, to the functioning of a complex, interconnected and interdependent society (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). These studies posit that universities bear great public duties and responsibilities to cement and maintain trustworthiness and public values (Broucker, De Wit, & Verhoeven, 2018).

Trust is found to play a significant role in well-functioning organisations (Searle, 2013). Universities need to build trust with their employees (Chrobot-Mason, 2003), students (da de Jager & Gbadamosi, 2013; Rosa Borges, de Souza Domingues, & Cássia da Silva Cordeiro, 2016) and external stakeholders (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019; Bstieler, Hemmert, & Barczak, 2017) to foster effective collaboration and communication. Trust is an important component that facilitates partnerships and long-term relationships, including in collaborations such as work-integrated-learning learning (Fleming, Pretti, & J, 2018), teacher training (Emstad & V, 2020), and knowledge transfer and engagement (Johnston, Robinson, & Lockett, 2010). It was noted that trust relationship is different from the one-directional forms of knowledge transfer and includes two-ways reciprocal knowledge exchange and engagement.

Most of the studies on ‘trust’ focus on university-industry collaboration (e.g., 44 articles, or 15% of the screened empirical literature), and have found that, overall, trust has a positive influence on university-industry collaboration. Empirical studies have also consistently found trust (or lack thereof) as a facilitator or (barrier) in university-industry collaboration. Identifying common ground is the first step towards university-societal engagement, collaboration and partnership. Yet, achieving this common ground can be difficult, though not impossible, due to the different cultures, rules, norms, structures, systems and cultures existing in universities and external stakeholders (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Trust is particularly important in a context where research uncertainty and unfavourable research findings could be a barrier to meaningful collaboration (Plewa, 2008). Our systematic review highlighted that communication lays the foundation for trust (Bstieler, Hemmert, & Barczak, 2017; Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Suntornpithug & W, 2015; Thomas & Paul, 2019). Communication is manifested in the ways in which information is conveyed, and through its frequency (de Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, van der Windti, & Gerkema, 2019).

Despite the positive role of trust, our review suggested that different studies have different focuses on trust, making the findings inconclusive regarding the quality and nature of trust in universities-external stakeholders collaboration. Some scholars categorised trust as a series of sequential actions and activities, such as initiate, sustain, break and repair of trust at various collaboration stages (Barnett, Anderson, Houle, Higginbotham, & Gatling, 2010; Betts & Santoro, 2011; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2021; Oliver, Montgomery, & Barda, 2020; Tootell et al., 2020). For example, Darabi, Saunders, and Clark (2020), found that trust in the initial stage of university-industry collaboration is based on calculus trust (weighing the costs and benefits), then moving to knowledge-based trust (cognitive components of competence and integrity, the affective component of benevolence), to identification-based trust (based on shared goals and common purposes).

Even though trust has been investigated in empirical studies through various conceptual lenses, there seems to be a lack of an elaborate measure of trust. Most empirical studies adopted a business trust scale – customers, consumers and sales (Santoro & BierIy, 2006) – or rely on a few questions to examine the trust construct in their models (Bruneel, d’Este, & Salter, 2010; Okamuro & Nishimura, 2015).

Some studies differentiate between trust at the individual level from the institutional level. For example, in a study of university-industry knowledge transfer in Israel, Oliver, Montgomery, and Barda (2020) found that at the individual level, scientists developed characteristic-based trust first (trust based on professional competence, norms, and knowledge background) and then process-based trust (shared processes and routines) later in the collaboration. While trust at the institutional level – developed by executives in the university and firm through adherence to contract and commitment to fairness and quality – complements the trust developed at the individual level.

To facilitate a more meaningful discussion of key findings, the following sections are structured to present studies that have studied ‘trust’ at a macro, institutional level, and at a micro, individual level.

Trust at the institution-to-institution level

Trust research focusing on the institution-to-institution level consists of case studies of university-government collaborations (Oliver, Montgomery, & Barda, 2020) or university-business social capital development (Padilla-Meléndez, Del Aguila-Obra, Lockett, & Fuster, 2020). Most of these studies have identified barriers to trust, including a lack of common goals and shared visions between institutions (Padilla-Meléndez, Del Aguila-Obra, Lockett, & Fuster, 2020). Among the reasons that non-university stakeholders lack trust in universities is the latter’s prioritisation and focus on academic research publications over industry goals (Azman et al., 2019). Studies have found that lacking trust in systemic and cultural dimensions of institutions, such as little institutional acknowledgement of the time required to build trust, has inadvertently created structural barriers for individual academics to establish formal and informal connections with businesses and industries (Padilla-Meléndez, Del Aguila-Obra, Lockett, & Fuster, 2020).

As knowledge-producing institutions, discourses on trust in universities have often been framed in terms of knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer. For example, the level of openness to knowledge sharing determines the level of public trust in sciences. This issue is particularly relevant in times of misinformation. Whether certain scientific knowledge is made open-source, thus contributing to public knowledge, or behind a paywall of peer-reviewed academic journal publications, thus limited to those who afford to access it, can impact the ability for knowledge to act as a vehicle to build trust. The same logic applies to intellectual property and copyrights, which are increasingly protected by laws that restrict public access. Tensions around different knowledge exchange objectives and goals, such as for-profit versus not-for-profit are also explored in the literature (Broucker, De Wit, & Verhoeven, 2018; Critchley & Nicol, 2011; Critchley, 2008). The notion of trusting collaboration is framed around who could be trusted, and what is trustworthy, underpinned by a range of implicit public values (e.g., greater economic productivity, reducing crime, promoting social justice). The literature raises deeper questions about trust around ethics and dilemmas of liberalisation and marketisation of academic-industry collaboration and partnerships. Increasingly, contemporary managerial frameworks have pushed for the kinds of university-industry collaboration that are transactional and commercial-driven, risking and undermining public values (Broucker, De Wit, & Verhoeven, 2018).

Ironically, navigating through these structural, cultural and philosophical tensions and dilemmas also requires trust in one another. While many universities are increasingly focusing on ‘tangible’ forms of knowledge transfers such as copyrights, patents and intellectual properties, studies have highlighted the importance of trust in transferring tacit knowledge from one institution to another (Sherwood & Covin, 2008). Tacit knowledge consists of important information that is often not made explicit (Santoro & BierIy, 2006). This information, although difficult to measure, is pivotal to strategic decision making at the institutional level. In the context of increasing privatisation and commercialisation of university-public relationships, even STEM research needs trust to engage with the society, as noted that ‘referring to innovation in science-based sectors, trust as the main driver of university-industry interactions, rather than patent, citations and previous collaboration’ (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019, 1947).

Trust at the individual-to-individual level

Many studies of trust at the individual level have focused on academics and identified that trust can be impaired by short-sightedness, hyper-competitive, opportunistic and exploitative behaviour (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). These studies find that past collaborative experience could shape future partnership opportunities and outcomes. For example, referrals from previous partners and collaborators are often used to decide and plan for potential future partnerships (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Effective communication is needed to establish shared visions and goals (Bstieler, Hemmert, & Barczak, 2017; Plewa et al., 2013). In a highly specialised research field where the research network is small, testimonies and words of mouth help reduce the risk of opportunistic behaviour. For example, a blind academic peer-review process requires extensive, involved and collaborative efforts of individual scholars to work together and ensure the quality and standard of empirical research publications relevant to their field of expertise are held high. However, the peer review process is time-consuming and often lacks formal institutional recognition. Innovative solutions, such as digital platforms like Publons, could be used to facilitate and recognise the goodwill and reciprocal exchange underpinning academic behaviours.

A number of studies discussed the idea of knowledge-absorptive capacity. These studies find that trust in knowledge exchange increases when industries have the capacity (such as through well-developed Research and Development investment schemes, or well-trained and qualified staff) to receive (and absorb) knowledge produced by universities (Bruneel, d’Este, & Salter, 2010; Elezi & Bamber, 2021). Universities could invest, or work with industry partners to develop solutions, in advanced systems and build the capabilities of staff to improve the absorptive capacity of university-industry knowledge exchange. However, the literature on professional development in university-society engagement is limited, though recommendations often point to developing capacities to facilitate collaboration that implies training, workshops and professional development (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Ultimately, having the ‘right mindset’ about what kinds of values the individuals intend to create could define the kinds of trusting relationships one wishes to build, whether it is transactional or transformational relationships.

Some studies have emphasised the nuances between the individual and institutional trust, calling for a greater understanding of the influences and feedback between trust at the individual and institutional levels (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019; Oliver, Montgomery, & Barda, 2020). These researchers suggest that greater consideration is necessary to develop the whole-of-institution values, strategies, and plans before encouraging individual academics to engage with the broader societies. Institutional values could be demonstrated through a range of effective communication channels and professional development programs. However, research has found that when institutions display a contradiction between their value statements and actions, they risk losing societal trust in universities as public goods (Broucker, De Wit, & Verhoeven, 2018, p. 230). For example, universities introduce neoliberal policies, such as tightening of controls, cutting budget, freezing new appointments, squeezing the system while adding pressure to individual researchers to act opportunistically to secure competitive advantage.

Many studies conceptualised trust in broad two dimensions: trust based on competence or capability of the partner; and the effects of trust (Barnett, Anderson, Houle, Higginbotham, & Gatling, 2010; Francioni et al., 2021; Ruangpermpool, Igel, & Siengthai, 2020; Tootell et al., 2020). We decided to revisit the literature and capture a wide range of trusting characteristics that uniquely focus on higher education and society. Taking on board the multilevel, dynamic and emergent nature of these characteristics, we sorted and clustered these qualities into four main characteristics of trust: reliability, capability, integrity and benevolence ([Author], 202; Costa et al., 2018) to find out whether the two types of relationships (individual-to-individual and institution-to-institution) share similar trust characteristics.

Table 2 outlines some of the quotes and key findings.

Table 2. Characteristics of trust.

Characteristics	Key findings
Reliability	Trust is about: Keeping promises/adhering to contract: e.g., ‘Knowledge and significant resources are likely to be transferred in relationships when trust is maintained without violation’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Maintaining frequent communication: e.g., re-iterating partnership commitments and shared visions (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Enabling assessment of partnership eligibilities, intentions, and attitudes of another stakeholder within the relationship and providing an array of opportunities for relevant stakeholders to develop strong network ties (Thomas & Paul, 2019). Repeated collaborations: demonstrate longer-term commitment (Azman et al., 2019); ‘firms that are involved in repeated R&D cooperation are considered competent and trust-worthy partners by external organisations. This in return contributes to their reputation as reliable and attractive research partners’ (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019, 1943).
Capability	Trust is about: Open to mutual learning: e.g., trust binds people together and allows the easy sharing of insights (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 444). Absorptiveness: able to recognise and apply new knowledge (Betts & Santoro, 2011; cited in Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; de Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, van der Windti, & Gerkema, 2019) Knowledge transfer skills: e.g., have a suite of formal and informal knowledge transfer mechanisms, approaches and styles to optimise absorptiveness (Geuna & Muscio, 2009). Effective communication skills: e.g., able to develop both formal and informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between organisations; able to ‘promotes the exchange of rich and valuable knowledge and innovation performance’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, 443–44). Negotiation skills: e.g., able to negotiate and reach consensus when partners have different goals; able to settle in good terms (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 444). Having strong stakeholder management skills: e.g., to ‘abstain from enacting specific control measures over knowledge spillovers’ (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; cited in Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Building the right structure and resource: e.g., universities need to provide sufficient financial and human resources to engage and build long-term relationships (Abbasnejad, Baerz, Rostamy, & Azar, 2011).
Integrity	Trust is about: Cooperativeness: willing to let go of competitive instinct; ‘Trust is part of collaborative know-how’ (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019, 1946); Highly competitive, opportunistic and exploitative practices risk distrust (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Building a culture of trust within the institution: e.g., a lack of shared purposes, goals, meaning and social conventions among the stakeholders could complicate collaboration (de Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, van der Windti, & Gerkema, 2019). Building shared visions and goals with the external stakeholders: e.g., University-Industry needs shared ‘objectives to work hand-in-hand to solve problems and exhibits the willingness to comprehend and accommodate behaviours to keep up with the expectations of the members’ (Abbasnejad, Baerz, Rostamy, & Azar, 2011; Azman et al., 2019; Bruneel, d’Este, & Salter, 2010; Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Time: e.g., academics need to put aside time to ‘gradually build trust’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443)
Benevolence	Trust is about: Valuing social capital: e.g., contributes to integrating industry into the scientific community and to establish trust and long-term links (Geuna & Muscio, 2009). Demonstrating ‘goodwill’: e.g., willing to transfer knowledge between the university and the firm (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Prioritise relationship: e.g., ‘keeping the focus on the vision and the relationship and not letting the structural or operational difficulties wear down the partnership will increase the likelihood for success dramatically’ (Azman et al., 2019, p. 97). Consider broader impact: e.g., positive interpersonal trust could bring positive impact on organisational attitudes, behaviours and performance (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019).

Studies suggested that universities and academics generally demonstrate to the public their substantial ‘capabilities’ through their expert knowledge and research skills. Institutions and researchers could emphasise greater reliability, integrity and benevolence to build stronger public trust. Considering the complementarity in trust development between the individual and institutional levels (Oliver, Montgomery, & Barda, 2020), trusted relationships can be initiated, maintained and built by individual academics and further facilitated by institutional support and structure. On the opposite, universities can build a trust-based system and culture through academic performance, promotion and metrics that incentivise collaboration, cooperativeness, and reciprocal exchange, and disincentivise opportunistic and exploitative behaviours.

Suggestions for future research

Our review only focuses on trust between universities and their external stakeholders as we were interested in how external relationships could be enhanced in the current distrusting climate and misinformation. This targeted approach provides a granular analysis of these relationships while also pointing to potential areas for future research.

First, a large number of studies focusing on trust within the university context merit a review of themselves (see Table 1). This is because understanding how to build a trusting working environment within the university could be relevant to facilitating trusting relationships with external stakeholders. Future research could explore whether addressing internal trust could contribute to greater trust-building efforts with the external public engagement, and vice versa.

Second, among the studies that focused on external relationships, the majority focused on universities and industry/business stakeholders, while only a small number focused on universities and community and universities and government relationships. We suspect that the pressure for research commercialisation and industry funded research has driven more research interest towards industry and business partners. Consequently, there may be more resources directed to improving collaborations and relationships with these external partners. Future research could explore why commercial external stakeholders seemed to attract more research interest, and whether there are any differences in the trust relationships between universities and commercial stakeholders versus universities and non-commercial stakeholders.

Third, the review only focused on articles written in English and published since 2000. While it covers publications in a range of geographical contexts, there may be other studies published outside of this timeframe in other languages that may be relevant and useful to understand trust in higher education. Thus, there is scope for future research to expand on the current review to encompass a longer timeframe and to diversify sources of publications.

Finally, more research is needed to examine the relationships between trust and distrust between academics and the public in the context of misinformation and disinformation. While the literature search process was comprehensive, the systematic literature review has not adequately captured the potential academic distrust of the public. For example, two studies have highlighted an increased number of academics who experienced public harassment and online trolls while sharing their expert views in online public spaces (Noakes & Noakes, 2021; Oksanen, Celuch, Latikka, Oksa, & Savela, 2021). In addition, female academics and academics of minority backgrounds are more vulnerable to public abuse when they undertake public engagement (Oksanen, Celuch, Latikka, Oksa, & Savela, 2021; Veletsianos, Houlden, Hodson, & Gosse, 2018). These online social phenomena of academic distrust could be further complicated and heightened by the rapid shift in the socio-cultural and political environment where many knowledge production institutions are located (in the individualist, western, English-language dominated societies). These issues call for more research examining the socio-political issues of coloniality and neoliberalism, and the blurring notions between academic freedom and freedom of speech. More research from historians and sociologists could help deepen our understanding of these social trends and social phenomena confronting many researchers, universities and the higher education sector.

Conclusion

This article explores the trust relationship between universities and societies. A systematic literature review was conducted to examine the intricacies and multi-layered nature of these relationships. The review found that research and empirical understanding of trust between the universities and their broader societies remain limited. Among empirical studies conducted in recent years, attention has skewed towards university-business and university-industry domains, with a lack of empirical studies focusing on university-community and university-government relations. The research gap is glaring and significant.

Given the rapid disruptions felt in the higher education sector and socio-cultural and geopolitical shifts, more research in this area could be in the interests of many stakeholders. This would help provide the deeper knowledge and capabilities necessary for individuals and organisations to navigate, identify and manage trust and distrust in a more balanced and holistic way. The systematic review categorises the various themes and identifies shared characteristics of trust – such as reliability, capability, integrity and benevolence – at institutional and individual levels. Collating recommendations from the previous empirical studies, universities should and could prioritise capacity building (e.g., investment and resource allocation) and capability building (e.g., professional development) to strengthen the rapidly weakened trust between universities and societies, at both institutional and individual levels.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).