What Drives Successful Campus Living Labs? The Case of Utrecht University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Section 5.3: Limitations and Future Research

Many of the future research suggestions are relevant, but could be more actionable. For example:

Instead of stating broadly that “future research should explore CLLs in diverse HEIs,” the authors could suggest specific institutional types or geographic regions that are currently under-represented.

The discussion on “orchestration” is compelling, but would benefit from reference to concrete models or preliminary findings, if available.

The mention of qualitative methods and subjectivity is appropriate. However, the section could be strengthened by discussing whether alternative or complementary methods (e.g., mixed methods, longitudinal studies) might help address these limitations in future work.

Although this section is primarily focused on limitations, the final paragraph blends conclusions with a summary of contributions. It might be clearer to separate the limitations and future research from the concluding remarks, perhaps moving lines 792–799 to a distinct conclusion section to avoid redundancy.

The section references some literature (e.g., [23], [46]), but future research directions would be more robust if supported with additional citations pointing to recent debates, gaps, or frameworks in CLL and HEI governance literature.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the article itself is a bit too general. I suggest choosing a new title that contains the key solution of sustainability. It would also be desirable to include the term "embedded case study" in the keywords. The summary is a little too long and should be shortened and the scientific contribution emphasised. One of the comments is that the term "Mi", which is often mentioned, should be replaced in some places, especially in the summary, with terms more appropriate to scientific expression.

The introductory section describes the topics of the thesis well and uses relevant references. However, due to its length and the complexity of the topic, it is suggested to divide it into subsections to make it easier for the reader to follow.

The structure, i.e. the levels of SNM, are explained several times - they are also mentioned at the universities - which is a bit redundant.

The introduction could also be written slightly differently, namely in the sense that the subsection explaining the applications of SNM and MLP at universities is quoted, and it is only written that this is mentioned in references 5-18. This is important due to the specificity of the topic.

The sentence mentioning that universities are slow to change on the one hand and that they are their catalyst on the other is a bit too bold. It would be good to give examples that confirm this. It should also be explained how and why sustainability is important to these institutions - for example, these are trends that have been emphasised as important for years, but how are they being implemented? For example, some trends come from the European Union and contribute to faculty visibility - faculties want to promote such practises, but there are many differences in the areas in which they operate.

Explain how universities are implementing this and how it is measured.

The second part, chapter 2, should state how many students participate in the laboratory activities

In the description of the methods, Table 1 needs to be adapted - it is quite difficult to read, e.g. the font is too large, think about a different presentation. Although the exclusion criterion has been explained, it would be necessary to explain the criteria for inclusion of initiatives for further consideration

In Table 2 the proportions for each category - initiatives, roles, positions - should be added together, this is unclear.

Table 2 - analysis steps - where were they taken from for coding? Insert some references.

Figures 1 and 2 are unclear in this context because although the thinner lines connecting the categories allude to absence, it is confusing. Perhaps you should only use them for enablers, but definitely change the colours as the two shades of blue are similar. Explain why the Sanket diagram was used - scientifically, and leave only 1 in the paper, describe the other narratively.

For the figure, i.e. Fig. 3 is an unclear calculation, if it refers to a figure mentioned, perhaps state that it is in Appendix C (probably). Provide an example of calculations for at least one category, this is important because of the methodology - it must be included. The colours in the diagram, i.e. in Figure 3, should also be changed. This figure is important because the authors will refer to it later in the text, so it is important that it is easier to read with colours.

The factors are described well and in detail in relation to the problem context considered in the article.

The discussion is very extensive, it might be good to divide it into sub-points with the main conclusions. Although there is a lot of text and it is mainly qualitative research, quantitative, i.e. measurable results and an indicator that could somehow be calculated based on the frequency of mentions would be good - but perhaps that is beyond the scope of the article. List as a limitation.

What the paper lacks is a conclusion as a chapter - I think it would be useful to write a few sentences about the exact scientific contribution and the transferability to other higher education institutions.

An empirically rich article that makes a valuable contribution to understanding the conditions for the successful development of CLLs in higher education. However, the article would gain weight if more critical thought was given to the limitations of the institutional environment - is this modifiable for this specific context and how can the findings be transferred to other institutions or countries? Explain. Although the context of Utrecht University is described in detail, there is a lack of critical reflection on possible specificities that might limit the transferability of the findings (e.g. institutional support, level of resources, culture of the Netherlands). The authors only partially acknowledge this in the limitations.

Although it is mentioned in the last section that everything was conducted ethically and in accordance with the guidelines, it is not mentioned whether the interviewees had to give their consent for the interview or for the recording of the interview. How is the data collected managed in terms of its storage and destruction? What is the defined research policy? Is there a risk of bias due to the proximity of the principal researcher to the institution (e.g. attendance at CLU meetings)?

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for doing this important research.  I am curious about your choice in the interviewee roles.  It seems to me that the student group is underrepresented.  Wouldn't students be more directly involved in the CLL initiatives?  

I think it would be helpful to the reader if you could provide a concrete example of suggested directions.  For example, line 652-653, "making the hidden outcomes explicit would help ..."  Could you follow this sentence up with a concrete example?  

These suggestions that you have identified are a bit "hidden", I feel, in a single sentence.   Like the example above, lines 662-664 do something similar; you state an important direction in a single sentence and then move on.  It seems it could be useful in this location to suggest that explicitly adopting action research methods and mental models could help to reframe the 'lab experiments' away from the rigidity of laboratory science methods. 

I do wonder if the highest mention of "working culture" might be an artifact caused by staff outnumbering the other respondents (faculty/students) by 2:1. 

Some editing things:

I think there are extra words in the sentence in line 110

The punctuation is not quite right in line 675, producing a sentence fragment starting with "Indicating that..." 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf