The Institutionalization of the University Third Mission: A Comparative Study between Addis Ababa and Jimma Universities, Ethiopia
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020-06
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa University
Abstract
Besides the traditional missions of research and teaching, ‘the University Third Mission’ (UTM)
has recently become a major policy concern for universities. As a result, universities are
increasingly engaged in a broad range of UTM activities and expected to act as a key
contributor to the economic and social wellbeing of their countries and regions. However, there
are suggestions from recent national and international research that UTM is not given equal
value as teaching and research, which are prioritized, with UTM coming in a distant third,
almost as an afterthought. Universities are being criticized for this and their lack and improper
use of UTM budgets, for the unfavorable attitude of faculty members towards UTM, and for
unfavorable conditions of work and poor logistics for faculty to work on the activities of UTM.
The assumption behind the present dissertation is that these problems relate to a lack of proper
institutionalization of the UTM and the aim of the research is therefore to assess this process of
institutionalization. A comparative investigation in two Ethiopian public universities was
conducted. The first is the Ethiopian flagship university (Addis Ababa University) and the second
is also among the first generation higher education institutions of the country (Jimma
University). Two basic questions were posed: (1) How is UTM described in the national policies
context? (2) How is UTM institutionalization at Addis Ababa University (AAU) and Jimma
University (JU)? The second question has 5 interrelated specific questions: (i) How supportive is
the institutional orientation of AAU and JU towards UTM? (ii) How supportive is the
institutional support of AAU and JU towards UTM? (iii) How do the community partners view
their involvement in UTM? (iv)What is the current status of teachers’ involvement in UTM? (v)
What similarities and differences are there in institutionalizing UTM at the two universities?To
answer these questions, a mixed research methodology that applies an exploratory sequential
method was employed to guide the research process. Institutional theory has been used as a lens
to guide this study. Data were mainly collected using semi-structured interviews, document
reviews, and questionnaires. An official from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
officials from the two universities, community partners, and teachers from both universities were
participants of this study. The Policy and strategic documents at the national and universities’
levels were also reviewed. While purposive sampling was used to identify the participants of the
interview and documents for review, proportionate stratified sampling was used to identify
teachers from both universities. The analysis of the study is mainly guided by the study’s
analytical framework. While the qualitative data were narrated under the analytical framework
of the study, a single sample t-test was used to analyze the quantitative data. After the analysis,
the quantitative data were made fit into the analytical framework and discussed together with the
qualitative data. Based on the analysis and discussions, it was found that though the national
policies recognize the importance of UTM, lack of emphasis for the mission and profound
problems on conceptualizing the mission were found. When it comes to the universities, even
though they integrated UTM in their mission statement, there are inconsistencies and
discrepancies in defining the mission. While both the universities have developed some important
policy documents, they fail to create a common understanding on what should be counted as
UTM at their universities. Both universities were found to have activities categorized under the
three core dimensions of UTM, however, these universities could not put clear distinctions
among these dimensions. The leadership and support of the universities were found to lack
devotion to: creating a strong partnership with the external community, building common
understanding and value on the stakeholders regarding UTM, assigning proper budget, and so
on. The community partners’ involvement in UTM was also found to be limited. The xiii
communication between the university and the community is more of a one-way (university dominated) communication. Teachers in both universities were also found to have low
participation in the activities of UTM in general and technology transfer in particular.
Generally, even though there are minor differences in the process of institutionalizing UTM in
Addis Ababa and Jimma Universities, the process is immature in both universities. Hence,
suggestions are forwarded to further institutionalize UTM in these universities. Among the
suggestions is creating a common vocabulary for UTM. It is suggested in this research that
starting from the national level to the levels of the universities, clarity, and consistency in
conceptualizing the UTM should be given priority. This should also be followed by creating a
common understanding and value for all stakeholders.
Key words: the University Third Mission, Institutionalization, Institutional Support, Institutional
orientation,
Description
Keywords
The University Third Mission,, Institutionalization,, Institutional Support,, Institutional orientation