Patterns of third mission engagement among scientists and engineers

Abstract

In the context of growing societal demand and interdependency, universities need to prioritize their 'third mission' activities and balance them against core functions. Individual researchers too are faced with multiple external constituencies and various mechanisms for interaction. The degree, target, and mode of their involvement with societal actors must be considered in light also of high performance expectations concerning traditional teaching and research activities. In this study, we explore patterns of third mission involvement among 652 researchers at the Science and Technology Faculty, Aarhus University from 2009-2012 using register-based data. First, we collect 13 indicators of third mission involvement from the university register system PURE, and find that these can be organised in distinct sets. External interaction and knowledge sharing can take many shapes, but they appear to group together empirically in ways that reflect the external partners and mode of involvement. Second, we determine five clusters of researchers based on their third mission activities. The majority of researchers has limited engagement in any kind of third mission activities, while an almost negligible minority entertain activities across the board. The remaining researchers focus their engagement on one type of third mission activity: public sector service, industrial collaboration, or executive involvement. Finally, we explore the interrelatedness of third mission involvement and research performance. Researchers who work closely with industry perform extremely well in terms of both publication productivity and impact, while those primarily engaged with public authorities perform considerably below average. We contextualise the results and highlight the limitations of the study.

Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality

“…There has been an increasing interest in the role of universities and other public research institutes in knowledge transfer, described as the 'third mission' (Etzkowitz et al 2000;Gulbrandsen and Slipersaeter 2007;Benneworth et al 2015;Cesaroni and Piccaluga 2016;Mejlgaard and Ryan 2017;Di Nauta et al 2018). These knowledge transfer activities of universities can be extremely diverse ranging from engagement activities such as collaborative research, contract research, consultancy through to commercialisation activities associated with patenting and academic entrepreneurship (Perkmann et al 2013).…”

Communicating Science: A Global Perspective

“…A clear difference with other post-socialist countries emerges, however, when looking at the science-society relationship, according to Mejlgaard (2017). Taking into account not only the state of science communication but also the use of science in policymaking, public participation in science governance and innovation performance, this analysis places Estonia in the 'science central' cluster.…”

Denmark, Norway and Sweden: Share, make useful and critically discuss: Science communication

“…Second, as important institutions of knowledge and culture, they should exchange knowledge and competencies with actors in society, disseminate knowledge about scientific results and methods to the public and encourage their employees to take part in public debate. Studies indicate that most scientists and engineers have limited engagement in any kind of third mission activities, but those that do tend to engage in public sector service, industrial collaboration or executive involvement (Mejlgaard and Ryan, 2017). Researchers from the humanities, however, are overwhelmingly engaged in disseminating knowledge to the public through books, newspapers, magazines, blogs and social media (Johansson et al, 2018).…”