The Institutionalization Of The University Third Mission A Comparative Study Between Addis Ababa And Jimma Universities Ethiopia

Besides the traditional missions of research and teaching, ‘the University Third Mission’ (UTM) rnhas recently become a major policy concern for universities. As a result, universities are rnincreasingly engaged in a broad range of UTM activities and expected to act as a key rncontributor to the economic and social wellbeing of their countries and regions. However, there rnare suggestions from recent national and international research that UTM is not given equal rnvalue as teaching and research, which are prioritized, with UTM coming in a distant third, rnalmost as an afterthought. Universities are being criticized for this and their lack and improper rnuse of UTM budgets, for the unfavorable attitude of faculty members towards UTM, and for rnunfavorable conditions of work and poor logistics for faculty to work on the activities of UTM. rnThe assumption behind the present dissertation is that these problems relate to a lack of proper rninstitutionalization of the UTM and the aim of the research is therefore to assess this process of rninstitutionalization. A comparative investigation in two Ethiopian public universities was rnconducted. The first is the Ethiopian flagship university (Addis Ababa University) and the second rnis also among the first generation higher education institutions of the country (Jimma rnUniversity). Two basic questions were posed: (1) How is UTM described in the national policies rncontext? (2) How is UTM institutionalization at Addis Ababa University (AAU) and Jimma rnUniversity (JU)? The second question has 5 interrelated specific questions: (i) How supportive is rnthe institutional orientation of AAU and JU towards UTM? (ii) How supportive is the rninstitutional support of AAU and JU towards UTM? (iii) How do the community partners view rntheir involvement in UTM? (iv)What is the current status of teachers’ involvement in UTM? (v) rnWhat similarities and differences are there in institutionalizing UTM at the two universities?To rnanswer these questions, a mixed research methodology that applies an exploratory sequential rnmethod was employed to guide the research process. Institutional theory has been used as a lens rnto guide this study. Data were mainly collected using semi-structured interviews, document rnreviews, and questionnaires. An official from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, rnofficials from the two universities, community partners, and teachers from both universities were rnparticipants of this study. The Policy and strategic documents at the national and universities’ rnlevels were also reviewed. While purposive sampling was used to identify the participants of the rninterview and documents for review, proportionate stratified sampling was used to identify rnteachers from both universities. The analysis of the study is mainly guided by the study’s rnanalytical framework. While the qualitative data were narrated under the analytical framework rnof the study, a single sample t-test was used to analyze the quantitative data. After the analysis, rnthe quantitative data were made fit into the analytical framework and discussed together with the rnqualitative data. Based on the analysis and discussions, it was found that though the national rnpolicies recognize the importance of UTM, lack of emphasis for the mission and profound rnproblems on conceptualizing the mission were found. When it comes to the universities, even rnthough they integrated UTM in their mission statement, there are inconsistencies and rndiscrepancies in defining the mission. While both the universities have developed some important rnpolicy documents, they fail to create a common understanding on what should be counted as rnUTM at their universities. Both universities were found to have activities categorized under the rnthree core dimensions of UTM, however, these universities could not put clear distinctions rnamong these dimensions. The leadership and support of the universities were found to lack rndevotion to: creating a strong partnership with the external community, building common rnunderstanding and value on the stakeholders regarding UTM, assigning proper budget, and so rnon. The community partners’ involvement in UTM was also found to be limited. The xiii rncommunication 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 rnparticipation in the activities of UTM in general and technology transfer in particular. rnGenerally, even though there are minor differences in the process of institutionalizing UTM in rnAddis Ababa and Jimma Universities, the process is immature in both universities. Hence, rnsuggestions are forwarded to further institutionalize UTM in these universities. Among the rnsuggestions is creating a common vocabulary for UTM. It is suggested in this research that rnstarting from the national level to the levels of the universities, clarity, and consistency in rnconceptualizing the UTM should be given priority. This should also be followed by creating a rncommon understanding and value for all stakeholders. rnKey words: the University Third Mission, Institutionalization, Institutional Support, Institutional rnorientation,

Get Full Work

Report copyright infringement or plagiarism