Rethinking Economics Education: Student Perceptions of the Social and Solidarity Economy in Higher Education

Abstract

This article emphasises the critical role higher education institutions (HEIs) play in fostering critical knowledge and social cohesion by exploring students’ perceptions of the social and solidarity economy (SSE). It addresses the need for a more diverse curricular approach within HEIs, particularly in economics and business education, to challenge the dominance of the neoclassical model. This study, conducted at the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) of the University of the Basque Country, investigates whether students perceive the SSE as a viable alternative to the current economic paradigm and its necessity and innovation in higher education. Utilizing a free-association questionnaire and Iramuteq software analysis, the findings reveal a strong demand for a more inclusive educational framework that incorporates heterodox economic theories, especially the SSE. This research contributes to the discourse on integrating SSE into economics and business courses as part of university social responsibility (USR), highlighting its unique social values.

1. Introduction

The role of higher education institutions (hereinafter HEIs) in promoting critical knowledge and social cohesion is well known. This is connected to their social function, which is crystallised in debates as to “how” university social responsibility (hereinafter USR) is to be carried out. The rhetoric regarding the social role of HEIs has pivoted from a utilitarian and corporativist logic to a consideration of them as agents of change and promoters of social transformations. One of the ways that they can impact society is to commit to a participative, people-oriented, human, diverse, and plural education. This means rethinking curricular fabrics and reconfiguring them so that they can contain the greatest number of perspectives possible.

Higher education in economics has historically focused on meeting market needs and responding to commercial dynamics. It has prioritised neoliberal models that emphasise profit maximisation, market efficiency, and economic growth. Indeed, HEIs are increasingly required to compete with each other at multiple levels, often adjusting their recruitment, curricula, and missions to meet market needs (Hawkins & Jacob, 2010). This approach has resulted in a curriculum focused on technical and quantitative skills, often neglecting critical and alternative perspectives such as the social and solidarity economy (hereinafter SSE). The teaching of economics in higher education often gives priority to traditional models, which may not adequately prepare students to deal with the challenges of contemporary society, such as inequality, environmental degradation, and social exclusion. According to (Coyle, 2011), university economics programmes tend to focus on homogeneous theoretical models that underestimate the social and ethical complexities inherent in real-world economic dynamics. In a similar vein, Fullbrook (2007) argues that this market-oriented approach limits the ability of students to deal with contemporary challenges such as inequality and environmental sustainability, as they are not adequately exposed to pluralistic and contextual approaches.

The dominant form of teaching economics tends to grant individual, and not structural, responsibility to problems such as increasing inequalities, environmental problems, and social exclusion, leaving aside systemic reasons that are tackled by heterodox economics. Faced with this situation, there is a growing academic and social interest in the importance of a more pluralist teaching of economics and business in HEIs (Franco-Martinez & Garcia-Gordillo, 2020; Khoo, 2016; King, 2013; Molero-Simarro, 2016; Stilwell, 2006). From a plural point of view, it is necessary to reconsider the predominant axioms and concepts that are taught to students in the Faculty of Economics and Business (hereinafter FEB), and open up a range of approaches, methods, and theories so they can compete with each other (Harvold-Kvangraven & Alves, 2020), attending to proposals that are critical of the capitalist system of production and consumption (Fontecoba et al., 2015).

Despite the importance of the matter, heterodox economies, and particularly the SSE, are hardly covered at universities, even though these have considerable potential in terms of incorporating ethical dimensions related to social justice and solidarity into economic teaching (Arcos-Alonso & Olea, 2020; Bretos et al., 2023). Furthermore, there has been little research into students’ perceptions regarding the SSE, despite the importance of such research, given that it might enable baselines to be created for curriculum design and the inclusion of heterodox economies and the SSE in university courses.

By rethinking higher education through the SSE perspective, institutions can foster a holistic and critical understanding of economic systems, highlighting alternative models that prioritise social wellbeing, cooperative practices, and sustainability. This reorientation is not a refutation but rather an expansion of the purpose of economic education, aligning it with the pressing need for ethical and inclusive approaches to economic development. In this regard, integrating the SSE into economics education could provide a more inclusive and critical foundation, equipping future economists to better address current social and global challenges. Hence, introducing the SSE into higher education is not only relevant but necessary to cultivate future leaders equipped to navigate and transform the complex dynamics of the modern economy.

The present study examines university students’ perceptions and representations of the SSE ecosystem in the Basque Country. Perceptions are cognitive processes that integrate interpretation, learning, and symbolisation, forming judgments that build ideologies and culture (Vargas-Melgarejo, 1994). In the context of the SSE, they shape imaginaries and values that enable a critical understanding of its principles of cooperation, sustainability, and social justice (Bourdieu, 2008). In universities, these perceptions are key to interpreting the economy from a critical perspective and constructing collective knowledge, promoting inclusion and alternatives to the traditional economic model (Puin et al., 2021).

The Basque Country is a particularly interesting region for studying this topic, given that it is one of the areas in the world where the SSE economy has experienced the greatest development. The Mondragon group, the world’s largest cooperative group, is headquartered in this region, and the turnover of cooperative enterprises accounts for around 10% of regional GDP and 6% of employment (Vasco, 2023). Furthermore, there is an SSE ecosystem (Arcos-Alonso & Garcia-Azpuru, 2021) for promotion and research involving the Basque Government, various universities, companies, and research centres (Bakaikoa Azurmendi & Morandeira Arca, 2012). All this results in a significant presence of the SSE in public debate, which contrasts with the lack of inclusion of this topic in the official curricula of undergraduate degree programmes.

The analysis focuses on the representations that students have regarding the SSE in order, first, to determine their degree of knowledge and, second, to be able to consider lines of action for the inclusion of these kinds of economies in HEIs. Information has been collected using a free-association questionnaire, following the Grid Elaboration Method (Joffe & Elsey, 2014), in order then to carry out an automatic text analysis using the free software Iramuteq.

This study contributes to the debate about bringing to bear a pluralist viewpoint on the teaching of the economy, and therefore the relevance and need to include the SSE in HEIs’ teaching of Economics and Business, within the framework of USR, given that knowing what students understand, a priori, about the SSE sheds light on the potentials of and challenges to educating future economists.

This study can also provide evidence about the prior knowledge (Van Kesteren et al., 2018) of students coming from a social environment where the SSE has a significant presence. Since it is not integrated into official curricula, this prior knowledge may originate from both the hidden curriculum and learning that occurs outside the educational system. Finally, the prior knowledge identified in the study can serve as a foundation for the integration of the SSE into official curricula.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. The Role of the Higher Education Institutions and University Social Responsibility

As part of a territory, HEIs maintain a symbiotic relationship with society, being a part of an ecosystem of actors. Therefore, economic, political, and social changes that have taken place over the course of history, and particularly in recent times, have impacted HEIs, submitting them to a broad process of reforms required in order to respond to the challenges that society faces, at the same time as they have fed on the resources that their surroundings offer them in order to carry out their functions of academic education and research (Urdapilleta, 2019).

Due to globalisation, the knowledge economy, and the adoption of neoliberal paradigms, higher education has undergone significant transformations in recent decades (Zajda & Rust, 2016). These dynamics have led to global competition among universities and have positioned knowledge as a marketable commodity and institutions as entrepreneurial actors within the framework of academic capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). International rankings, such as the Shanghai Rankings and the Times Higher Education Rankings, have reinforced this trend by establishing standards that prioritise research, encourage imitative behaviour, and threaten institutional diversity (Huisman, 2008; Van Vught, 2008). These dynamics now shape the global higher education landscape, characterised by striving for prestige, increased investment in ’world-class’ universities in regions such as Asia and the Middle East, and local strategies that reflect both inequalities and adaptations to specific contexts (Harman & Harman, 2008). These trends are not only redefining the traditional missions of higher education but are also laying the foundations for the competition and commodification that define the current system.

A changing university setting, a reduction in public spending on higher education, and its internationalisation and commercialisation are some of the challenges that have faced and still face HEIs during this first quarter of the century. As Sanderson & Watters (2006) state, these matters have led higher education in the direction of a “corporatisation” that erodes the traditional values and practices of HEIs. This trend has been growing more strongly within the framework of neoliberalism, with the pretext of boosting institutions’ status in the market and increasing their productivity. Given this trend, we find a situation whereby the economisation of higher education represents a major ontological change. This is driving universities in the direction of training a qualified workforce, pushing into the background its traditional missions of promoting basic research, personal development through knowledge, and encouraging social criticism and awareness (Kallo & Välimaa, 2024; Shore & Wright, 2017; Marginson, 2023).

HEIs play a fundamental role in the process of socialising people, and they are the space where, as well as building human capabilities, people can adopt and explore perspectives on life that are linked to ethical values and principles (Polanyi, 1944). It is necessary for them to recognise their social dimension and assume a central role as promotors of social transformation (Ruiz-Corbella & Bautista-Cerro, 2016) as well as to integrate Impact Management into their internal operations, that is, the management of human, social, and environmental impacts, from an ethical, intelligent, and responsible point of view. They also need to be coherent in terms of their basic functions in order to become a social example “that allows students to benefit from a double source of learning, that is, to learn their degree at the university, but also to learn citizen habits and values from the university” (Vallaeys, 2008, p. 6).

This leads to the demand for permanent institutional coherence and congruence in all organisational processes, from institutional purchases to the organisation of the curricula and lines of research (Gaete, 2018; Larrán-Jorge & Andrades-Peña, 2015; Vallaeys, 2014).

In short, HEIs are the framework in which students and lecturers interact, helping to educate students as “autonomous, critical and responsible subjects, with knowledge transferred that holds within it these values” (Gaete, 2018, p. 100), in a university system that is committed and of quality. This is how university social responsibility (USR) arises.

Amiano (2019) considers USR to be an ambiguous and polysemic concept, which is being developed by universities with very different approaches. According to Larrán-Jorge & Andrades-Peña (2015), it takes into consideration relations with stakeholders, taking up the needs and interests of interest groups that it deals with, and offers educational and knowledge transfer services following ethical principles and those of good government, respect for the environment, social commitment, and the promotion of citizen values (Gaete, 2011, 2018; Vallaeys, 2008, 2014). It must also be aware of the fact that its own externalities, considered from a three-fold perspective (economic, social, and environmental), will necessarily lead to a restructuring of its own university management and leadership model. This will enable the classification of relationships that are generated inside and outside of the HEIs based on the different needs and characteristics of each HIE and its context (Sasaki & Horng, 2023).

USR must also be transformative, putting the emphasis on the management of knowledge for its potential to achieve a fairer, more equitable society. In the words of Gaete (2011, p. 10), “USR has the function of leading the contributions and reflections that make it possible to achieve a more equitable and more just society”, transforming society in a way that not only responds to social needs, but does so in a way that is responsible and can stimulate awareness in others. What would be required would be methods of teaching and learning that encourage graduates who are critical, and research and innovations in line with this transformational goal (Müller & Martínez, 2016). In this regard, knowledge processes, for example transfer or exchange, can contribute to supporting the different dimensions of USR (Zaharia et al., 2010).

This shift would entail modifications in order to move towards a more student-centred teaching–learning model, with the need to undertake an enlargement of the margins and limits that are set in the curriculum, giving a more varied and holistic education (Vallaeys, 2008).

In short, in terms of USR, much of the literature analysed places an emphasis on the management model of HEIs (El-Kassar et al., 2023; Sasaki & Horng, 2023; Wigmore-Álvarez et al., 2020), but not so much on the need to carry out an in-depth revision of course contents and teaching methods (Iafrancesco, 2004) that include and guarantee a sustainable development in which the teaching staff “in charge of the education must open up their own epistemological commitments and those of the educational institution” (Kaivola & Rohweder, 2007, p. 75). HEIs, and economics and business faculties, as places for the education of future professionals, should transform society, applying values that favour a more human development (Müller & Martínez, 2016), and this requires pluralist approaches to economics.

2.2. Teaching in Heterodox Economics; The Social and Solidarity Economy and Higher Education Institutions

2.2.1. Teaching Pluralist Economics in HEIs

The neoliberal ideology and the focus on the global market has transformed the work of university lecturers and course content (Khoo, 2016). Specifically, “economics is unique among the social sciences in having a single monolithic mainstream, which is either unaware of or actively hostile to alternative approaches” (King, 2013, p. 17).

For decades, different movements among university lecturers and students have been demanding a necessary and more plural approach to teaching economics, one that moves away from the neoclassical economic monism (Sent, 2006). The neoclassical approach in economics is the one that has predominated over the course of the last half century in economics teaching, and it has often been excessively imbued with formalist mathematical models and supposedly “rationalist” principles, without a wider contextualisation of economic problems or in-depth training in other social scientific methods (Schweitzer-Krah & Engartner, 2019). This does not reflect the real plurality of the discipline, and so stands in the way of students educating themselves in heterodox economic viewpoints and proposals (Denis, 2009).

In order to overcome the limitations of the established corporate educational system, a more pluralist pedagogy and a critical focus that incorporates teaching in heterodox economics in higher education are needed (Cooper & Ramey, 2014; Denis, 2009; Fullbrook, 2007; Gérard & Vandenberghe, 2007; Franco-Martinez & Garcia-Gordillo, 2020; Reardon, 2020; Schweitzer-Krah & Engartner, 2019; Sent, 2006; Söderbaum, 2004). This approach would help to create a more emancipatory educational process that is committed to social justice. The pluralist teaching of economics challenges the economic orthodoxy and includes a broader range of theories and approaches, which allows students to understand better the diversity of economic practices and the contexts in which they operate (Fullbrook, 2007). Furthermore, according to both Denis (2009) and Mearman et al. (2011), pluralism does not mean lowering standards, but rather introducing controversy and critical debate as pedagogical tools. This can benefit students, lecturers, employers, and society in general, developing the intellectual independence of students and improving their capacity for critical judgement.

In recent years, studies have been carried out in order to collect students’ perceptions regarding what is involved in teaching pluralist economics at university. Cooper & Ramey (2014) ran a study between 2000 and 2010, in which 2200 former students of a pluralist economics programme at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (USA) assessed their pluralist education positively, highlighting its effectiveness in the development of critical thinking and problem solving, essential for their later careers. These results were compared with a national survey carried out in the USA in 2008 on economics students, confirming that Hobart and William Smith students were more satisfied with their education, especially in terms of communication skills and moral reasoning. Furthermore, more recently, Schweitzer-Krah & Engartner (2019) tackled the issue of how economics students at various German universities perceived economics teaching and the debate on pluralism in the discipline. On this occasion, the students mainly wanted to study economics for idealistic reasons, seeking to understand how society worked and to contribute to a better world; however, after four semesters, many students experienced an increase in their career ambitions and competitiveness, while altruistic motivations such as solidarity and sensitivity decreased. This produced in them a certain disillusionment, since over a third felt that their original expectations had not been met, either partially or totally. So, the authors concluded that, given the evident predominance of the neoclassical model in university teaching in Germany and the limitations of student movements in terms of triggering, on their own, major changes in this same teaching, a more plural education was necessary, one that was supported by external professionals, alternative educational programmes, and continuous empirical research.

The pluralist education in economics or heterodox economies can be understood as those that are different from, or that question, the dominant neoclassical current taught in most FEBs. These approaches are carried out from a “Polanyian substantive” perspective (Polanyi, 1944), in which “economic phenomena are understood as part of a broader social and natural reality” (Molero-Simarro, 2016, p. 70). They offer a heterogeneous range of “economics”—institutional political economy, as well as ecological, feminist, Marxist, post-Keynesian, and development economics—(Molero-Simarro, 2016), whose starting point is a critical perspective with respect to hegemonic propositions.

The social economy and SSE are among these economics. The SSE aims to build a post-capitalist world focused on people and nature rather than on growth and profit. It provides a broad framework for organizing economic practices based on values like solidarity, participation, equity, sustainability, and pluralism, instead of uniformity (Borzaga et al., 2019; Miller, 2010; Nair & Moolakkattu, 2022; UNRISD, 2014, 2024).

Indeed, there is no universally accepted definition, and as Utting (2023) points out, there are diverse views and approaches to SSE, from those emphasising reformist or pragmatic purposes to those focusing on its transformative potential for emancipation and systemic change towards post-capitalist horizons.

The SSE has grown from the common trunk of the social economy and it proposes a reassessment of the economic act, putting the person and work at its heart (Pérez de Mendiguren & Etxezarreta, 2015), offering an alternative view of the conventional economy (Coraggio, 2014; Laville, 2009). Critiquing capitalism and rejecting utilitarianism and the ’rational’ subject of orthodox economics, the SSE offers an alternative economic approach. It focuses on sustaining life and ensuring material and immaterial wellbeing, rooted in values such as solidarity, reciprocity, and social and environmental justice. The SSE takes many forms, including cooperatives, mutuals, and community organisations, but its essence lies in the voluntary commitment to alternative values that guide its practices. However, if one were to highlight one characteristic of the different forms of SSE enterprises, it would be the democratic and participatory nature of their governance, which, together with the values they uphold, makes them excellent platforms to learn and experience other ways of understanding and putting into practice the economic act.

In recent decades, the SSE has emerged as a sustainable alternative, transcending traditional distinctions between the political, economic, and cultural spheres. This movement is reflected in social enterprises and cooperative experiments, representing a renewal of the social economy in response to the crisis of capitalism (Andersen et al., 2022). The SSE draws inspiration from phenomena such as self-management, alternativism, the popular economy, and social movements, driving its institutionalisation and expansion. The SSE is in constant construction, founded upon the praxis of organisations, and it is able to unite synergies through a practical and educational dimension. In terms of education, HEIs need to provide students with different, alternative economic experiences and knowledge. With regard to the subjects covered by FEBs, this means moving away from exclusively capitalist axioms and concepts, using discourses that are very different from those rooted in HEIs (Fontecoba et al., 2015, p. 204). To do so, one approach would be to cover the matter of the SSE and even aim to insert it into the curriculum of FEB degrees, as advocated by the Campaign for a Global Curriculum of the SSE and the “international call by economics students in favour of pluralist teaching” (International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics, 2014). Within the University of the Basque Country and specifically in its FEB, the diagnosis carried out in 2020 raises the issue of the lack of pluralism in teaching economics as well as the clear preponderance of neoclassical economics “tacitly accepted as a model” in degree programmes (Arcos-Alonso et al., 2020). This pluralist educational proposal responds to social demands and to the challenges considered by the European Higher Education Area and the IKDi³ Model (https://www.ehu.eus/es/web/iraunkortasuna/ehuagenda-2030/ikd-i3-estrategia, accessed on 12 March 2024), a teaching–learning model that the UPV/EHU took on in 2019.

However, it is important to point out that the link between higher education and the SSE is not exactly new, particularly in the Latin American context (Montoya, 2017). However, in Spain, and particularly in the teaching of economics and business degrees, it is at a very early stage.

There are various previous studies on the subject of inserting the SSE into Spanish faculties. Some, from the viewpoint of undergraduate students, highlight the relevance of incorporating it into higher education (Hernández-Arteaga et al., 2018); others focus on analysing its insertion into postgraduate courses (Flores-Ruiz et al., 2016). What is more, CIRIEC España (CIRIEC (International Centre for Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy) is an international non-governmental scientific organisation whose objectives are to promote information research, scientific research, and the dissemination of work on sectors and activities whose main purpose is to serve the general interest) and the Red ENUIES (Red ENUIES: Spanish inter-university network of institutes and research centres in social economics) monitor the SSE panorama in the sphere of higher education through annual reports, which show the current situation of the phenomenon, and this is an invitation to make progress in terms of proposals to strengthen and develop their presence.

Specifically, in the recent report written by the Red ENUIES and CIRIEC on the subject of university education in the social economy in Spain (Díaz-Foncea, 2023), a total of 38 educational resources (online and in-person) and a total of 202.5 ECTS credits were identified within the analytical framework of 77 Spanish universities. None of these resources or credits were identified as being at the UPV/EHU, which clearly shows the work that can be performed in this direction. In any case, an important matter in this report is the express mention it makes of the potential for working on the SSE using active methodologies, particularly by means of Service Learning.

In practice, the application of active methodologies in the classroom boosts a dynamic and participative educational environment, improving the understanding and retention of economic concepts and developing critical and problem-solving skills in students (Prince, 2004), which is perfectly in alignment with the raison d’être of the SSE itself. In particular, Service Learning has shown itself to be an effective tool for connecting economic theory with practice, providing students with direct experiences in the application of SSE principles in community projects (Jacoby, 1996), “favouring contact with organisations in the sector (especially in those without an explicit profit motive)” (Díaz-Foncea, 2023, p. 19).

2.2.2. Potentials of the SSE in the Higher Education Framework

The highlighting of the potentials and benefits of incorporating SSE into higher education in economics and business has been happening for some time. Authors such as (Arcos-Alonso et al., 2020) consider that the SSE can help to develop educational strategies, promoting a pedagogical policy that resists neoliberalism and builds an alternative economy. It allows advances to be made in a critical and emancipatory teaching of economics (Pastore, 2015; Pastore & Altschuler, 2015).

The development of critical and ethical skills by the SSE is an important platform for building competences that are beyond the scope of the traditional approach of economic disciplines. By fostering critical analysis, the SSE invites students to question dominant economic structures and explore alternatives based on collaboration, solidarity, and equity (Utting, 2015). This approach translates into the ability to identify systemic problems and propose solutions that integrate ethical and social values.

In addition, collaborative decision-making at the core of the SSE prepares future leaders to work in democratic and participatory contexts, an essential skill when it comes to addressing global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and economic crises (Dacheux & Goujon, 2011). Practicing these values in education allows students to internalise the importance of ethical principles in managing resources, building inclusive policies and strengthening the social fabric.

In other words, it is considered that the SSE promotes a practical approach in education, offering opportunities for students to acquire practical skills and business knowledge in real contexts, such as social entrepreneurship projects or cooperatives (Laville & Nyssens, 2001). This underlines the potential of the SSE to enrich higher education by promoting the ethical values of solidarity, social responsibility, and equity; cultivating committed citizenship for the common good; and promoting innovation and an enterprising spirit oriented at creating social and environmental solutions, preparing students to face contemporary challenges (Defourny & Nyssens, 2006; Miller, 2010).

Working on the SSE in the curriculum contributes, then, to training professionals who are committed to social transformation (Meira et al., 2020) and so bringing it into the university setting is a matter of considerable importance (Arcos-Alonso & Olea, 2020; Juliá et al., 2020; Juliá & Díaz-Foncea, 2021).

Recent studies indicate how students’ participation in SSE projects, using active methodologies, allows them to develop critical thinking and provide them with tools, capabilities, and skills in order to be able to embark on enterprises applying ethical and environmental values (Bretos et al., 2023; Santana-Vega et al., 2020).

Teaching SSE can create processes of relationship building and dialogue among students and the set of actors in the movement (Arcos-Alonso et al., 2023; Mendy et al., 2015; Vallaeys, 2014). Its integration into higher education stimulates applied research focussing on resolving community problems, generating practical and sustainable solutions. It is interesting, then, to consider this building of relationships, enabling mutual learning communities involving academic actors and external social actors from the SSE that favour the construction of “interpersonal relationships with social relevance, the protections of a local patrimony forged from a common language and living together” (Vallaeys, 2014, p. 109). The work performed “by the public university can fulfil an important role in terms of strengthening the SSE if it is done together with all the actors in a territory by means of a participatory methodology and a dialogue of knowledge” (Mendy et al., 2015, p. 11), bolstering the very fabric of the SSE.

In this way, the SSE, as part of the curriculum, would contribute to training critical professionals and citizens, promoting alternatives for social transformation. Solidarity is presented as a value, a moral sentiment, and a political and ethical position, contributing to good living, development, and peace (Gómez et al., 2019). The SSE is characterised by being embedded in the local territory. It is a catalyst of endogenous resources at different levels (social, cultural, economic, etc.) (Laville, 2009; Pérez de Mendiguren & Etxezarreta, 2015). This gives it the potential to undermine the effects of dominant market logics by bringing the reality and resources of the territory closer in order to respond to local needs and interests. Higher education institutions are finding it difficult to respond to these needs as a result of global homogenisation processes (Coyle, 2011; King, 2013). Therefore, the SSE has the potential to bring the university closer to local needs.

Although the SSE builds bridges between academia and the community, something that is lacking is a precise analysis regarding student perceptions and the identification of opportunities within the university to work on the SSE in the lecture room. The study of students’ representations of the SSE is relevant because it provides a diagnosis of their prior knowledge on this topic. Prior knowledge serves as the foundation upon which subsequent knowledge is built and has been shown to have positive effects on the assimilation of information and the achievement of meaningful learning (Alexander & Murphy, 1998). However, the activation of prior knowledge is not automatic and requires a certain degree of congruency with the new knowledge (Brod, 2021), as well as a proper articulation of formal and informal learning (Kintzer, 1999). In this regard, the study of students’ representations, understood as non-formal prior knowledge, offers valuable information for curriculum design.

3. AIMS

Aims of the Study

Starting from the hypothesis that the SSE is an effective tool for transmitting the values and practices of heterodox economics in the sphere of the FEBs of HEIs, the following aims were considered:

-

Identify the representations of FEB students at the University of the Basque Country regarding what the SSE is and what it involves, as a tool for the transmission of ethical values and principles.

-

Identify students’ prior knowledge and its connection with formal knowledge in the field of the social and solidarity economy (SSE).

-

Identify the potentials and complementarities of inserting the SSE into the teaching of economics and business.

4. Methodology

The research methodology consisted in carrying out an automatic lexical analysis using the free software Iramuteq (Iramuteq, 2023). This involved a number of key phases that followed and adapted the methodological phases established (Eiguren et al., 2021; Idoiaga-Mondragon et al., 2017, 2020, 2021; Lo Monaco & Bonetto, 2019).

First, a textual corpus was collected through a free-association questionnaire or ‘Grid Elaboration Method’ (Joffe & Elsey, 2014), in which participants responded freely and anonymously with words and ideas related to the SSE a priori. The advantage of this method is that respondents directly show their perceptions of a specific phenomenon, which is the SSE. Secondly, in order to analyse the co-occurrence of terms, the data were then segmented into elementary contextual units (ECUs) of approximately 50 words. The ECUs were then grouped into lexical classes using Reinert’s top-down hierarchical method, with significant words selected according to their frequency and statistical relevance. Reinert’s method has been widely used in the study of social representations (Idoiaga-Mondragon et al., 2020; Klein & Licata, 2003), using the Iramuteq program.

Finally, a similarity analysis was then carried out to identify the relationships between words and to graphically structure the semantic cores and connections of the collective discourse. These phases, supported by automated Iramuteq tools, ensured a reproducible, transparent, and visually representative analysis of student perceptions of the SSE.

This methodology was used because it combines qualitative and quantitative techniques to rigorously analyse the social perceptions of students regarding SSE. The free association of words makes it possible to capture spontaneous thoughts and representations, while the Reinert method and similarity analysis provide statistical transparency and reproducibility. Using Iramuteq software ensures an objective classification of data, identifying lexical patterns and connections that reveal underlying structures of meaning. This approach avoids reliability issues typical of qualitative methods (Costa et al., 2021) and enables a comprehensive interpretation of the text corpus aligned with the study’s objectives. Its results are not only reproducible, but also provide a graphical and structured view of collective thinking that would be difficult to achieve with purely manual approaches.

4.1. Text Analysis

4.1.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 183 FEB students at the University of the Basque Country (61% women and 39% men), with an average age of 22.8, and with an age range of 18 to 36. The majority of the students were from economics (42%), closely followed by BAM students. The distribution shows a higher proportion of women (65.9% and 65.1%, respectively) in all fields of study, especially in business and BAM. A breakdown of respondents by degree and gender is shown in

Table 1. Sample.

	Total		Man		Woman
[Average age: 22.8 years]	N	%	N	%	N	%
Economics degree	76	42%	34	44.7%	42	55.3%
Business degree	44	24%	15	34.1%	29	65.9%
BAM degree	63	34%	22	34.9%	41	65.1%
Total	183		71	39%	112	61%

Source: Own elaboration.

below.

4.1.2. Procedure

The information was collected between March and June 2023 by means of a questionnaire, employing the Google Forms tool, and linked to the university’s own intranet. The lecturers explained the aims of the study and the characteristics of the questionnaire, attending to any queries that arose. The ethical–scientific recommendations of the University of the Basque Country and the Helsinki Declaration were followed. So, permission was requested of the Ethics Committee, and its agreement was given in file PI_2024_009.

4.1.3. Design

A qualitative design, involving the free association of words, was created. This method is useful for bringing together and interpreting thoughts and representations that students have regarding specific matters; in this case, this concerns what they think, a priori, about the SSE.

In the first place, a word cloud was created, which was organised based on the relative frequency of words (Molina-Neira, 2017); also, a similarity analysis was carried out, which made it possible to show, with a graph, how different groups of words are related and intersect, suggesting avenues of analysis. Lastly, an analysis was performed following the Reinert method, which understands that a word is not independent from another word, in such a way that they are able to reflect a way of thinking about a matter or question, since it is by using them that statements acquire meaning (Reinert, 1996).

4.1.4. Instrument

Students replied to a free-association questionnaire using the Grid Elaboration Method (Joffe & Elsey, 2014). Initially, they responded with the first four words or ideas that came to their minds when they heard the words “SSE”.

They were then asked to explain why they used each word given, and its meaning. This information was used to extract a text corpus that worked as a basis for the automatic data analysis.

4.1.5. Data Analysis

A lexical analysis was carried out using the Reinert method (Reinert, 1996) using Iramuteq software. The automatic text analysis program Iramuteq (version 0.7 alpha. 2) is an R-based free software (version 4.0.3).

The software divides the initial corpus into elementary contextual units or ECUs. Each ECU has a size of approximately 50 words. The analysis is carried out bearing in mind which complete words are located in each unit. A posteriori, a contingency table was created that represents their distribution by unit. The program creates a square distance matrix. Based on this, if two ECUs share words, it is understood that they are close.

Then, a descending hierarchical analysis was carried out, from which a classification and grouping of the ECUs was extracted. Classes of words that occur at the same time and which differ from others were obtained, in order to interpret the texts. The most important words from each class were classified using three criteria: 1. the frequency of the repeatability of the word is over 5 in its class; 2. the value of the associative chi squared (χ²) test is more than 3.89 compared to the class; and 3. the word appears in each class with a frequency equal to or greater than 50% (99). In this way, a margin of error of p < 0.05 (df = 1) was created.

The result of this analysis is a set of classes consisting of words and ECUs with significant statistical values. This was used to proceed with the interpretation of the meaning of each class obtained that has been processed in the corpus.

According to authors such as Schonhardt-Bailey (2013), the operations resulting from the application of the Reinert method are statistical, transparent, and reproducible up to the moment of interpretation, in which the researchers assign a name to each of the classes based on the specific vocabulary and segments typical of that class proposed by the software. There may be differences of interpretation in the results, but this method avoids problems of reliability and validity that can come with other qualitative methods (Costa et al., 2021).

4.2. Similarity Analysis

This study is based on the properties of connection of the whole corpus, without considering the specific text units (the ECUs) or the subjects. The more subjects that deal with two elements in the same way, the closer they are to the object they refer to (Molina-Neira, 2017).

The similarities among words were identified according to their connections in the text and the structure of the text corpus’s content was identified, with the content and the internal organisation of the social representation of the object analysed displayed in a way that shows both shared common components and also unique features (Marchand & Ratinaud, 2012). Therefore, the analysis makes possible a definition of the identity of the nuclei of expression of the subjects, with the program identifying a semantic nucleus detected according to the co-occurrence of sets of words (Camargo & Justo, 2013).

That is to say, the similarity analysis presents a summary of the structure contained in a representation based on a tree-shaped graph that contains the maximum forms and those that are related, in which the nodes are forms and they show lexical communities, making visible the classes formed among the elements that create a representation of an object and the intensity of the links (Latorre, 2005).

When it comes to interpretation, the forms are in the nodes of the graph and the edges/branches represent what is happening among them. The more a word is repeated, the larger it will appear represented. The more co-occurrence there is among words, the broader the branch of the tree will be. The goal is to reveal relationships between forms based on research aims (Ruiz-Bueno, 2017).

5. Results

An automatic text analysis was carried out using the Iramuteq program. This consisted of (1) a similarity analysis of the responses given by the students and, (2) a lexical analysis using the Reinert method. This analysis is accompanied by a qualitative section, showing some of the most important voices from among the students, supporting these results.

5.1. Text Analysis: Representations Regarding What Faculty of Economics and Business Students Understand by the SSE

5.1.1. Word Cloud

The word cloud displays significance, measured in terms of the greater relative frequency of those words or concepts that the students have named. As it is possible to observe in Figure 1, the word most named is economía (economy/economics) (f = 326), followed by social (f = 222) and solidarity (solidario) (f = 198). Then, with a rather lower number of mentions, we find person (f = 121), help (f = 114), word (f = 111), and society (f = 105).

The students link the SSE with the economic discipline that puts people at the centre, very close to society and the environment, with principles of reciprocity and solidarity, and that seeks an equitable and fair development. It is interesting that no words that might be associated with other branches of economics appear, such as efficiency, performance, capital, competition, competitiveness, etc. This means that the students are clear about certain limits that the SSE has to respect, and these do not converge with the more orthodox economies.

5.1.2. Similarity Analysis

Based on a lexical similarity analysis involving all words with a frequency of greater than 23, an image was created that reflects the co-occurrences among all of them, above and beyond their division into classes. In this way, it is possible to analyse and interpret how the words of the corpus are interconnected at a general level and also to identify the nuclei of the representations. Figure 2 shows this phenomenon.

The results show that economía (economy/economics) (f = 326) is the most cited word and the one that is set up as a nucleus of an emerging representation from which later associations are observed. In this way, depending on the associations and the thickness, it can be seen how this kind of economy is fundamentally related to the social (f = 222), linking it to people (f = 25) and to the need (f = 25) to respond to the current situation, and in which the state (f = 23), as a public power, participates. The perception of the SSE is that of an economic model that is not yet rooted in society, and it is something for the future (f = 27).

Furthermore, offering solidarity (solidario) (f = 198) through the economy is linked to doing (f = 47) economics in a way (f = 27) that is different (f = 25), that is, based on solidarity (solidaridad) (f = 71). This would require thinking (f = 42) and seeking (f = 48) a form of creating (f = 66) wellbeing (f = 51) based on equality (f = 88) and equity (f = 50), in which the individual (f = 28) takes part and is at the centre. In this way, the SSE is linked to helping (f = 114) the person (f = 121), given that this is the unit at the heart of the economic act, and also helping society (f = 105) in terms of its needs (f = 37).

More atomised are words traditionally linked to the SSE, such as cooperation (f = 30), whose goal (f = 41) is or should be to achieve (f = 31) development (f = 36) and the wellbeing (f = 51) of the individual (f = 28) and of the society (f = 88).

Therefore, the SSE is perceived as a type (f = 29) of economy in which naming (f = 33) concepts such as inequality (f = 40) and poverty (f = 37) is important (f = 24), since what is named is made visible and exists. Only by visibilising these realities can work be performed to achieve (f = 31) a world (f = 27) that is more fair (f = 33) and equitable (f = 26).

Likewise, it is interesting to see how the SSE is also associated, with a certain level of co-occurrence, with money (f = 67) and work (f = 24); these are concepts that, from a sceptical point of view of the potentials of the SSE, might not be, a priori, associated with it.

Figure 2 presents a curious similarity with a tortoise; in didactic terms, this fact makes it interesting to consider a series of analogies between the SSE and the tortoise. Firstly, metaphorically, it would be possible to talk about certain (SSE) principles and values protected under a shell: economy, social, and solidarity, whose goal is to seek equality and equity for people, putting the person at the centre; and this coincides with the halo provided by the Iramuteq program. Furthermore, limbs could be added to this, which will move the system towards the goal set, keeping in mind that what is needed is the help of all in order to achieve change (the tail), which involves the joint collaboration and alliance of people and the state (the head), who together must lead this transformation.

Lastly, the students also made an interesting proposal. They imagined, and aimed to illustrate, the SSE in a figurative manner: Cautiously advancing another step with the tortoise analogy, we could talk about the need for the transformation to be a slow, thoughtful, firm, and uninterrupted process, similar to the movement of a tortoise. This representation of the SSE could respond to the name of a “tortoise mechanism”, shown in the following Figure 3.

In short, students represent the SSE as an economy linked to values and principles that are traditionally close to it, and which are a substantial part of it. This shows that their representations regarding what the SSE is are not far from what is advocated from within the SSE. However, there also seems to be a certain association of the SSE with characteristics of assistance or support, linked to beliefs or suppositions that these kinds of heterodox economies only act in the social sphere, ignoring their potential for transforming the system.

5.1.3. Reinert Method

Presented below are the results that arise from the application of the Reinert method. A total of 183 responses became a complete corpus consisting of 13,710 words, 1983 of which were unique words. The descending hierarchical analysis was made up of 179 ECUs. Figure 4 shows the dendrogram of this study, which has five main classes or themes which have resulted from the cluster analysis.

The students see the SSE as an “alternative and necessary system that empathises with people and the environment” and therefore puts these at the heart of its priorities and principles.

“The Solidarity Economy proposes a transition towards new models in which equity is a central element of relationships among individuals, communities and peoples, as well as the planet.”

[E87, woman, BAM degree. χ² = 210.8]

This perception (Figure 4) radiates from the five classes obtained, which in turn are grouped into two major branches. The first branch includes the first and second classes and refers to the objective of the SSE to “build a fair and equitable economic system” in which the economy must be at the service of the person and the environment, which coincides with the assumptions of the SSE.

Some of the voices who participated in the questionnaire see the SSE as a way of doing economics that enables a transition towards a fairer model and confer upon it the task of achieving a more equal social development.

“I think the aim of the SSE is to achieve social development, responding to the problems that exist today and reducing the inequalities that exist.”

[E119, women, economics degree. χ² = 196.2]

This branch, in turn, consists of two different classes: class 1 (20.40%), “Responsible production and consumption”, and class 2 (23.80%), “Contributing to equity”.

In class 1, “Responsible production and consumption”, the students view the SSE as a people-focussed economy that helps to respect the socioeconomic and environmental context, establishing responsible production processes. This involves matters such as respecting workers’ rights, alternative forms of organisation, and a concern with the impact of production processes on society and the environment.

“The SSE creates decent jobs.”

[E86, woman, business administration and management (BAM) degree. χ² = 154.6]

“The creation of enterprises such as cooperatives that break away from the classic hierarchical model base their ideas on the SSE.”

[E146, man, economics degree. χ² = 199.2]

“I consider that the SSE should aim to improve society in general… these improvements would be in the environment, the region’s economy and the economy of the different stages of production (farmer, processors, wholesaler).”

[E48, woman, BAM degree. χ² = 199.2]

The students see the SSE as an alternative for tackling the climate emergency, setting an example in terms of alternative forms of organisation, such as cooperatives, and as an appropriate way to reduce the negative externalities that the production and consumption system produces and reproduces.

Class 1 was mentioned more, to a significant degree, by women students (p < 0.01).

Class 2 (23.80%) covers the need to “Contribute to equity”. The students consider that the SSE is the means for dealing with inequality and achieving a fairer sharing of resources, in order to improve people’s quality of life.

“In an equitable economic system, it is sought to ensure that all people have access to the resources necessary to satisfy their basic needs (…). This involves a fair distribution of wealth and income, as well as an equality of opportunities…”

[E54, man, business degree. χ² = 164.1]

The second branch of the dendrogram, which consists of classes 3, 4, and 5, and which is sub-divided, in turn, into two sub-branches—one made up of classes 3 and 4 and the other of class 5—deals with the idea of “developing a caring and participative social and economic model”.

“Companies that are set up based on this economic model (SSE) are usually founded on the principle of mutual support among peers. (…) The model is concerned with inequalities and an optimistic vision of a fairer future”

[E147, man, economics degree. χ² = 200.3]

Class 3 (12.20%) is focussed on “counteracting inequality”, and class 4 (23.80%) places the emphasis on “considering people and the environment”. Together, they create a sub-branch that makes visible the need to “create equal and supportive relations”, showing that the economy should be at the service of people, and not the other way around. This involves a change in values and a transformation of the situation by means of different social principles, such as the solidarity principle.

“Since solidarity involves empathy with and support for society, it will therefore help to achieve an SSE.”

[E23, woman, business degree. χ² = 68.5]

In class 5 (19.70%), “joint social and institutional participation”, the SSE is described as a kind of alliance or commitment among the parts that make up the system. They point out the need for cooperation among public authorities, companies, and society, developing public policies. This class was significantly more mentioned by economics students (p < 0.01).

“(…) I think that a social economy, as the name indicates, must be based on cooperation among the people and different organisations that constitute the system.”

[E155, woman, economics degree. χ² = 196.8]

Furthermore, there is a strong association between the idea of achieving the goals mentioned above and the importance of the public authorities participating in this. In this regard, above all, the role of the state is associated with the policy of equitable taxation, linked to the funding of the public spending needed to reduce inequalities.

“In order to set in motion an economy that is more social and caring it is necessary to act as a community, seeking the common good, and not the interests of the individual.”

[E80, woman, BAM degree. χ² = 156.8]

“The authorities and the government can establish policies that favour the reduction of income and social inequalities, such as through laws or setting different kinds of taxes.”

[E170, woman, economics degree. χ² = 167.2]

In short, the students identify elements that are inseparable from the propositions of the SSE, such as solidarity, equity, and dignified jobs, among others, and see the SSE as an alternative to the current dynamics in order to carry out an economic and social transformation that puts the person at the centre. To do this, they see as necessary the joint work of public/private agents.

6. Discussion and Final Reflections

This study offers a double contribution. First, this study contributes valuable information, collected in an open way from students in the FEB faculty of the University of the Basque Country, in order to understand how they view the SSE and their perceptions regarding the need for a pluralist teaching of economics and business. Second, its methodology could be applied to other FEBs, since it adapts easily to the characteristics of each HEI environment.

The increasing market orientation of higher education institutions (HEIs), under the guise of university social responsibility (USR), raises significant concerns about the erosion of their role in the generation of critical knowledge. As noted by Urdapilleta (2019) and Gaete (2018), HEIs should go beyond mere market responsiveness and act as spaces for critical inquiry and social progress. However, the pervasive influence of neoliberal logics, including commodifying education and prioritising competitive rankings, undermines this mission.

Market-driven approaches shift the focus of universities towards profitability, often sidelining disciplines and research that are not immediately marketable or profitable, such as the humanities or basic sciences. This creates a narrow vision of knowledge, tailored to serve corporate and economic interests, rather than fostering diverse, critical, and socially responsive scholarship. Sanderson & Watters (2006) highlight the negative consequences of such an erosion of values, where the alignment of HEIs with market demands compromises their contribution to meaningful social and economic development.

In addition, the logic of competition at all levels—institutional, national, and global—encourages the imitation of elite universities, prioritising research outputs over teaching quality or community engagement (Hawkins & Jacob, 2010; Khoo, 2016). This leads to the homogenisation of HEIs and diverts resources away from addressing local or societal challenges (Coyle, 2011; King, 2013). It also discourages the collaboration and inclusiveness that are essential for tackling complex global problems, further detracting from the critical and transformative role that universities should play.

In this regard, the FEB students show a great deal of uniformity. The results show a high level of coherence and depth of knowledge about the SSE. In the students’ discourses, they identify the main dimensions of the SSE, and an association of concepts is presented that is consistent with the basic propositions of the SSE. This result contrasts with the absence in the official programmes of content related to the SSE, which leads to the reflection that this knowledge has been acquired through a hidden curriculum (Jackson, 1990) that may be related to the implementation of the university’s USR strategy, which includes a recognition of credits for voluntary participation in organisations that are part of the solidarity economy, and/or to the positions of teaching staff with regard to the SSE. It may also be due to the existence of prior knowledge coming from a social context in which the SSE is of significant importance—the Basque Autonomous Region is a territory in which the SSE has a considerable presence. In either case, it would be interesting to incorporate SSE-related content into the formal curriculum for two reasons: first, because it would contribute to making the hidden curriculum explicit (Rossouw & Frick, 2023), and second, to provide a theoretical underpinning that maximises the positive effects of prior knowledge, thus helping to generate more meaningful learning. The mention by the students who are the subject of this study of environmental crises, social inequalities, and a predatory economic system, and the interpretation of the SSE as a viable response that would fix these externalities, renders visible their demand for a more diverse curriculum that would allow this reality to be transformed.

They corroborate the need for a more profound involvement by HEIs with a more plural teaching, which can offer space for the SSE. This is shown in the dendrogram in Figure 4, which represents the SSE as an alternative and necessary system that empathises with people and the environment. Students perceive the SSE as a people-centred economic model that promotes values such as solidarity, equity, and social justice, in contrast to orthodox economies that prioritise efficiency and competitiveness. They also highlight its potential to combat social and economic inequalities by distributing resources equitably, creating decent jobs and promoting equal opportunities, consolidating it as an alternative to the current model that promotes collective wellbeing and respect for the environment through cooperation between public, private, and community actors. However, they are aware that they do not receive curricular training, something that would be desirable considering the results.

This perspective is in accordance with the arguments presented by Borzaga et al. (2019); Coraggio (2014); Defourny & Nyssens (2006); Gómez et al. (2019); Laville (2009), who argue for the viability of the social and solidarity economy (SSE) as a transformative tool capable of challenging and reshaping the dominant economic paradigm. These scholars highlight the importance of the educational dimension of the SSE, as it provides an opportunity to critique traditional frameworks of economic thought and promote alternative, inclusive, and sustainable models that better address contemporary societal challenges.

Students’ perceptions further corroborate the proposals of Arcos-Alonso & Olea (2020); Gérard & Vandenberghe (2007); Gómez et al. (2019); Franco-Martinez & Garcia-Gordillo (2020) and Fontecoba et al. (2015), highlighting the urgent need to integrate pluralist economics into the curricula of Faculties of Economics and Business (FEBs). Such integration would broaden the scope of economic education beyond the limits of neoliberal orthodoxy, expose students to diverse perspectives, and equip them with the tools to critically evaluate and propose solutions to socioeconomic problems.

Moreover, these proposals emphasise the importance of active methodologies in transforming teaching practices. Idoiaga et al. (2023), Kaivola & Rohweder (2007) and Iafrancesco (2004) argue that by adopting participatory and experiential learning approaches, students can engage more deeply with pluralistic economic principles, fostering critical thinking and practical application. For example, methods such as project-based learning, case studies, and simulations can provide students with hands-on experience in designing and implementing SSE-inspired initiatives, thus bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world practice.

In 2007, Fullbrock and other authors such as Franco-Martinez & Garcia-Gordillo (2020); Khoo (2016); King (2013); Molero-Simarro (2016); Stilwell (2006) among others have warned that future professionals graduating from FEBs are limited in their ability to respond to contemporary challenges due to a lack of pluralistic perspectives. Incorporating these changes into the educational framework of FEB courses not only enhances the relevance and applicability of economic education but is also consistent with the broader goals of the SSE: promoting equity, sustainability, and social justice. Such efforts are a necessary step towards fostering a new generation of professionals who are prepared to drive systemic change and challenge the entrenched paradigms of the traditional economic system.

The results also reveal significant differences, firstly, in how female students perceive the SSE compared to male students, and secondly, between students of economics and those in business administration and management (BAM) or general business programmes. These differences highlight the diversity of priorities and perspectives within the broader student body and shed light on how gender and academic orientation shape the understanding of the SSE.

Female students, in general, exhibit a greater sensitivity to the impact of production and consumption on people and the environment. This suggests that women are more likely than their male counterparts to associate the SSE with principles of sustainability, ethical practices, and social justice. This heightened awareness may be coherent with global trends showing that women are often more engaged in issues related to environmental protection and social justice. Their point of view may lead to a stronger advocacy for responsible production and consumption practices within the framework of the SSE. Moreover, this focus could help shape future SSE initiatives that prioritise these dimensions, further enriching the ethical and environmental aspects of business.

Economics students, on the other hand, show a more systemic and policy-oriented perspective, with a particular sensitivity to the need for the co-production and co-construction of public policies that promote the SSE (Villancourt, 2013). This reflects their academic training, which often involves the analysis of macroeconomic systems, policy design, and the interplay between the public and private sectors. Economics students are more likely to see the SSE as a structural tool to address societal challenges, emphasising the role of public authorities, institutional frameworks, and collective action in fostering its development. Their approach complements the ethical and environmental focus of female students by offering practical ways to integrate SSE principles into broader economic systems.

The obvious dominance of orthodox thought and its presence in politics, the market, society, and HEIs themselves, motivates students to demand a change that begins with their own education, and which they understand will be a slow one. The metaphor linking the SSE and the tortoise aims to represent a protection of what is a priority (people and the environment) and the rhythm and steadiness necessary to move towards an SSE that permeates HEIs and society and the system in general.

7. Conclusions

HEIs are one of the great foundations of society. These are spaces which are critical, constructive, and transformational, which create bridges between academia and the community. However, governed by market dynamics, they do not always respond to social needs.

The results indicate a correlation with the essence of the SSE. The most significant results show that students represent it as an economic model with values including solidarity, reciprocity, cooperation, empathy, etc. In some cases, the hidden curriculum in the field of economics provides knowledge in alignment with positions that are individualist, that defend the free market, and that fit with the propositions of orthodox economics (Sonu & Marri, 2018). However, from this study, the conclusion can be drawn that the hidden curriculum acts as a means of transmission of knowledge related to critical economics (Bohm, 2023). In spite of that, some gaps in their knowledge are detected, possibly due to the lack of formal training in this field. Regarding this aspect, it is interesting to see how little the term “sustainability” appeared in the students’ associations/perceptions of the SSE, given the efforts made by the University of the Basque Country to work on sustainable development goals (hereinafter SDGs) through its educational model (IKDi³), which incorporates this concept as a central element.

In the case of women students, they are apparently more sensitive to the impact of production and consumption on people and the environment; economics students, in general, are more sensitive to the need for the co-production and a co-construction of public policies which encourage the SSE.

However, students see in the SSE a possible lever for social change and for improving wellbeing, one in which people’s participation is essential. The SSE is conceived as a space where the person is at the forefront, and the company is a space where and from which it is possible to create wellbeing.

From the academy and from FEB students, there is a call for a change in paradigm that requires collaborative and cooperative work towards an alternative consideration of the current economic system, which requires a theoretical–practical academic education in pluralist economics such as the economics of the SSE.

Students’ perceptions regarding the SSE—as an opportunity and a change-oriented alternative—confirm the existence of a significant basis which can be used to build a university curriculum in the SSE (and other economies). It has potential, but, at same time, it is necessary to offer something systematic and formal that can create in-depth processes of teaching–learning with regard to the SSE, so that the student can receive an education in economies linked to social and ecological values. These results coincide with studies such as the one carried out by Pérez-Suárez & Sánchez-Torné (2022). The dialectic relationship between what is learned informally or practically and what is learned in a formal or curricular way is, then, important in order to achieve deep and well-structured learning (Freire et al., 1997; Hattan et al., 2024).

This analysis shows how necessary it is that the University of the Basque Country, as a community with social responsibility and its own IKDi³ teaching–learning model in accordance with the principles of the SSE and the SDGs, becomes an agent of change. This can be accomplished by changing syllabuses or educating lecturers. Recent University of the Basque Country studies support the idea that lecturers also have the possibility of using active methodologies (Idoiaga et al., 2023) such as the “opportunity niche” to work on heterodox economics, something that would facilitate this change.

This would require introducing into FEB degrees optional subjects linked to the SSE that enable students to be educated more plurally, receiving, in the core subjects, the orthodox viewpoint and, from optional subjects, the heterodox viewpoint.

The bureaucratic requirements for introducing new core subjects into the curriculum make it more viable to introduce new optional subjects, with a view to them becoming core subjects, and specific modules in data-based subjects with lecturers who are experts in the SSE, considering practices similar to those existing in these subjects but from a different perspective. Additionally, it would be possible to offer degree projects on this matter and be able to carry them out with SSE companies in a way that is co-tutored, using service-learning or another kind of participative methodology, as is done at other universities in Spain (Bretos et al., 2023).

As mentioned at the beginning, the aim is not merely to replicate university extension processes, but rather for the university to adopt profound changes within the framework of university social responsibility (USR). Indeed, university extension processes are relevant and necessary to address and promote the social and solidarity economy (SSE). They play a crucial role in promoting knowledge transfer, collaboration with communities, and the generation of innovative solutions to societal challenges. However, as outlined above, these processes alone are not sufficient to address the complexity and depth of the transformative changes required. There is a need for deeper action that goes beyond traditional outreach activities and rethinks the role and responsibilities of the university in society. This involves integrating the principles of the SSE into the core functions of the institution—teaching, research, and governance—to ensure a more holistic and systemic approach to creating a socially just and sustainable future.

Finally, as a line of progress, it would be interesting for the university to establish a systematisation for carrying out analyses of FEB students’ knowledge about the SSE, with the goal of spreading it to all those faculties that teach business and economics subjects. This would expand the sample analysed and reduce the limitation of this study. Equally, it would be essential to apply a similar diagnosis to lecturers in order to identify the viability of these future changes given that they are an affected party. We believe that it would be very useful to apply a set of these kinds of analyses to other FEBs, with the goal of strengthening a more pluralist teaching of economics.