This article aims to investigate whether national differences in the institutionalization of the binary divide between universities and Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) lead to different outcomes in performing Academics’ Societal Engagement (ASE). Two institutional theory-based core differences of European binary higher education (HE) systems were used to select a theory-led purposeful sample: First, the sequence of UAS-institutionalization and ASE-policy emphasis and second the political drive for a practically oriented research drift. Based on the Finnish, German and Portuguese survey data provided by the cross-country study “Academic Profession in Knowledge Society,” three dimensions of ASE are derived: techno-commercial ASE, dissemination ASE and training-related ASE. These ASE-dimensions cover the diversity of ASE across different disciplinary fields. Survey results of the Finnish sample show that all three ASE-dimensions are more strongly performed by UAS-academics than by university-academics. In Germany, robust stronger correlations of research (productivity) and all three ASE-dimensions for UAS-academics, compared to university-academics, were observed. In Portugal, convergence of ASE performed by UAS-academics and university-academics was indicated. Thus, core country-differences in the institutionalization of ASE in binary HE-systems are reflected in the results.

本文旨在调查在大学与应用科学大学（UAS）之间的二元鸿沟制度化方面的国家差异是否会导致执行学者的社会参与（ASE）时产生不同的结果。欧洲二元高等教育（HE）系统的两个基于制度理论的核心差异被用来选择以理论为导向的有目的样本：首先，UAS制度化和ASE政策强调的顺序，其次是针对实践研究的政治动力漂移。根据越野研究“知识社会的学术专业”提供的芬兰，德国和葡萄牙调查数据，得出了ASE的三个方面：技术-商业ASE，传播ASE和与培训相关的ASE。这些ASE维度涵盖了不同学科领域中ASE的多样性。芬兰样本的调查结果表明，所有三个ASE维度的使用都比UAS大学的要强，而UAS学校的要强于大学。在德国，与大学学术相比，UAS学术的研究（生产率）和所有三个ASE维度之间都具有更强的相关性。在葡萄牙，有人指出，由UAS学术机构和大学学术机构进行的ASE融合。因此，结果反映了二元HE系统中ASE制度化的核心国家差异。观察到与大学学术研究相比，UAS学术研究（生产力）和所有三个ASE维度之间的相关性更强。在葡萄牙，已表明由UAS学术机构和大学学术机构进行的ASE融合。因此，结果反映了二元HE系统中ASE制度化的核心国家差异。观察到与大学学术研究相比，UAS学术研究（生产力）和所有三个ASE维度之间的相关性更强。在葡萄牙，有人指出，由UAS学术机构和大学学术机构进行的ASE融合。因此，结果反映了二元HE系统中ASE制度化的核心国家差异。