Public and non-profit higher education institutions (HEIs) across the globe have an enormous capacity to produce changes and contribute to the public good. An analytical overview of common trends and emerging patterns of their public mission initiatives worldwide is needed. The editors acknowledge that under the “public mission” umbrella, there are differences between activities usually called “knowledge transfer” or “economic development” and those traditionally pursued as “community engagement”. Consequently, this book covers such differences as derived from the various “case studies” from different countries. Colleges and universities, as organizations, do not exist in a vacuum, as they are live organizations that interact with their external and internal environments. Thus, in order to develop a better understanding of various public mission initiatives across the globe and why these were adopted by HEIs, the editors use a theoretical framework that emerges from organizational theory. Specifically, they analyze these “case studies” by using external environmental elements namely political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological as well as internal college/university characteristics, such as mission, vision, leadership, and governance (Papadimitriou 2020). Another feature of this book is related to a practical emphasis on the public mission initiatives described, their implementation and challenges throughout the chapters, with the intent to prompt readers to consider appropriate ways in which to adapt some of the lessons learned by the contributing authors.
The Public Mission of Higher Education Institutions
The three conventional ways in which colleges and universities are defined focus on an integrated approach to knowledge discovery, production, and dissemination across various academic disciplines, connecting undergraduate and graduate education, and advancing knowledge through research, scholarship, and teaching (Calhoun 2011). A different angle of analysis relates to the mission of HEIs, based on which teaching, knowledge production, and community engagement are intertwined. While the former two are more easily implemented and quantified, the latter could lead to varying degrees of complexity and scope when it comes to impact on community (Papadimitriou 2020). Community engagement relies on a range of structures, agents, and procedures by which communities at local, national, regional, and international levels are involved in partnerships and networks (Jacob et al. 2015). Benneworth et al. (2018, p. 17) define community engagement as a “process whereby universities engage with community stakeholders to undertake joint activities that can be mutually beneficial even if each side benefits in a different way”. As the public mission of colleges and universities derives from the definition of their work in the public domain (Calhoun 2011), the various types of related activities encompass economic development, technology transfer, community engagement, and community partnerships. The importance of the various ways in which institutions of higher education represent and connect to the communities they serve is supported by the fact that most of the economic impact of colleges and universities is felt at the local level (Lane 2012). At the same time, given the increasingly relevant research profile of colleges and universities in the twenty-first century, political stakeholders expect higher education to support economic development by way of commercialization of intellectual property through technology transfer (Siegel and Phan 2005). As an integral component of the repertoire of services offered by higher education to society, community engagement has increased in relevance in terms of solving civic issues. Given the current loss of financial capability by local, state, and/or national government(s) to sponsor programs and initiatives aimed at improving the wellbeing and livelihood of its citizens, colleges and universities have to step in to fill the void. Working with community partners could lead to greater positive influence of such actions onto creating and sustaining policies and practices intended to solve societal problems (Fisher et al. 2004).
Concurrent with increasing accountability requirements and public scrutiny, colleges and universities worldwide have been asked to become more actively involved in solving social issues either on the local, regional, national, or international level. The first mission of HEIs was focused on the transmission of knowledge through teaching, while the second mission dealt with the creation of knowledge through research (Cooper 2017). What emerged as a public or the third mission of higher education proposed relevance and social impact as parameters by which core activities would re-engage communities (Pinheiro et al. 2015) by applying the knowledge output through commodification and financialization (Addie 2017). The resulting institutionalized knowledge transfer encouraged academic entrepreneurialism (Shore and McLauchlan 2012) that was also spurred on by the gradual diminishing of state support for higher education. From the first time the phrase “third mission” was coined by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), the concept gained traction in various ways, ranging from economic and social impact of college/university initiatives involving communities to all such activities focused on environments external to institutions of higher education (Glasser et al. 2014). Under these circumstances, HEIs has gone through a series of structural changes to curricula to place a greater emphasis on employability and marketability of graduates whose academic preparation aligns with the requirements and needs of the labor market. As an example, a focus on science, technology, and mathematics (STEM) education is based on guidelines from various state and federal organizations that underscore the need for the US to maintain its global competitive edge via appropriate college preparation (Green 2014). College campus communities engage in program prioritization exercises as a way to cope with the growing public scrutiny dealing with the cost of attending college and its correlation to student debt, in addition to calls for accountability in terms of productivity and ability to contribute to the greater public good (Fannin and Saran 2017). In terms that go beyond the American context, colleges and universities became entrepreneurial as a way to maintain or elevate their regional competitiveness. In this light, formal and informal interactions with agencies at the local, state, and/or regional levels through a mix of curricular innovations, technology transfer, and research-driven incubators are expected to benefit society at large (Guerrero et al. 2016).
Organizational Perspective
Papadimitriou (2011) underscores that open systems theory has convincingly argued that in order to understand organizational change, one must observe an organization as an open system because organizations do not exist in a vacuum. Open systems theory emphasizes the importance of the environment in which organizations exist and it focuses on the inputs, outputs, and transformation of organizations insisting on the importance of the environment, emphasizing its impact on the organization.
The editors argue in this book that the constantly changing environment exerts pressure on HEIs to adapt. Organizational theorists (Katz and Kahn 1978; Morgan 1998; Scott 1995) discuss how open systems theory has generated many new concepts of thinking about organizations. Open systems theory was chosen as a starting point for the theoretical considerations when addressing universities in a changing environment.
Scott (1981, p. 22) stresses that “organizations are not closed systems, sealed [off from] their environments, but open to and dependent on flows of personnel and resources from outside their own systems”. Organizations, as open systems, exchange ideas with and give feedback to their external environment. Morgan (1998, pp. 40–41) states that “the systems approach builds on the principle that organizations, like organisms, are ‘open’ to their environment and must achieve an appropriate relation with that environment if they are to survive”. In a similar vein, Scott (2003, p. 91) states that from an open system perspective, “there is a close connection between the condition of the environment and the characteristics of the system within it: a complex system could not maintain its complexity in a simple environment”. Researchers describe HEIs as organizations with unique characteristics (Baldridge et al. 1977; Baldridge and Deal 1983; Papadimitriou 2011). Some distinguishing characteristics that affect a HEIs’ decision processes regarding adaptation to change (i.e. adopt public mission initiatives) are goal ambiguity, client service, task complexity, professionalism, and environmental vulnerability.
Enders (2004, p. 362) represents universities as “multi-purpose or multi-product” organizations and states that “universities are institutions that, in all societies, have performed basic functions which result from the particular combination of cultural and ideological, social and economic, educational and scientific roles that have been assigned to them”.
The argument that an organization does not and cannot exist in a vacuum also implies that organizations interact with their environments to achieve basic objectives (Gornitzka 1999). “The prevalence of an open-systems approach in organization theory has meant a focus on the relationship between the individual organization and the environment” (Rhoades 1992, p. 1886). Organizations’ external environment includes a variety of elements including technological, legal, political, economic, demographic, ecological, and cultural elements (Hall 1999; Scott 1995). Hall (1999, p. 208) maintains that “organizations do not respond to technological change through simple absorption. Instead, the organization’s political process operates through the advocacy of change or stability”. He observes that “since the rate of technological and all other environmental changes is not constant for all organizations, the degree to which organizations must develop response mechanisms varies” (p. 208). Sporn (1999) emphasizes that the new environmental demands triggered internal responses from universities around restructuring, retrenchment, re-engineering, (total) quality management, strategic planning, financial accounting, and technology transferred. Internationalization, globalization, regionalization, and de-nationalization are the changes in universities’ environment (Enders 2004).
Against this backdrop, the overarching critical points that the editors considered in their analysis of the contributing chapters and underscore the following factors faced by HEIs when attempting to adopt third mission initiatives:
- (a)Politic...