I think there is something like what the authors call 'the third mission' for universities, but I feel it is badly mischaracterized here (not that the authors are at fault; they are following a long tradition). Here is how they describe it: "translating the knowledge they generate into socioeconomic benefits." And here is what they consider to be the major problem: "Given that university research operates far upstream from practical implementation, connecting the lab to the market is no small task." The characterization is that universities are the source, the community is the recipient, and that it's an entirely one-sided relation. But of course that's not true. There are numerous actual and potential points of contact between the university and the community, ranging from the students that enrol, the priorities the community expresses, the data the community produces, the culture all of this inhabits. If we think of universities as producing nothing more than 'research outputs' that need to be 'translated' (or maybe 'mobilized') into benefits, we are seriously misguided.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
