I would remove the Web2.0 reference, it makes it feel more ephemeral and trendy rather than a necessary and helpful descriptor in defining an “institution”.

On the other hand, in context of Web2.0, I would be surprised at how little the user/student/administration/staff or more generally, just the influence of individual roles in how the “institution” evolves, are mentioned. It reads in a way that makes the institution feel very mechanical, which would be fine, except that the references to agency and social networks and such suggest that the role of the individual should be an integral part of the definition.

Just my two cents… -Sarita Yardi