Absence of clear guidelines and definitions

Related to the inappropriate appointments and promotions policy and practices is the lack of clear guidelines about the TM. Although the university’s strategic plan (2008/09–

2018/19) outlines the goals, objectives, strategies, and key performance indicators for partnerships and networking, the interview and documentary data show that there is a lack of clarity with regard to the TM, particularly in relation to what constitutes community service. In addition, the university does not orient its academic staff about (1) what constitutes academic work (2) community service and (3) the evaluation of community service. Nobody tells you exactly what constitutes outreach, R6 intimated:

Whatever people are doing outside teaching and research, they consider it outreach;

the whole university has no clear mechanism for doing that. It is a mandate of the university; everybody knows we have three functions: teaching, research, and outreach. The other two are very clear … outreach is the most ill-defined function of the university, and it is very difficult to ask someone what constitutes outreach;

probably people will tell you different things. (Personal communication, March 27, 2012.)

The insufficiency of clear guidelines affects the institutionalisation of the TM by not only limiting academic staff’s knowledge about, and involvement in, TM activities, but also complicating the process of assessing the contributions of the academic staff to the TM.

The interview data, for instance, reveal that although the university evaluates and rewards the academic staff for their contributions to external communities, there are no clear guidelines regarding how such contributions are, and/or should be, evaluated; therefore, the process of evaluating such contributions is rather characterised by the ’anything goes’

approach. In fact, none of the interviewed college principals, who, by their designation, head the establishment and appointment committees of their respective colleges, could explain clearly how they evaluate the contributions of the academic staff to the external communities. Commenting about how the university evaluates the contributions of its academic staff to the TM, R22 noted:

Frankly speaking, this is an area where you give everybody some mark because there is nobody who is useless to the community. In some specific areas, you can be very sure maybe someone is leading some section of the community, but I would say that maybe 60% or 70% of the times we just assume that you are useful to the community around you, not specifically stating how. (Personal communication, April 19, 2012.) In fact, some of the interviewees remarked that the lack of clarity about what constitutes the TM explains why the processes of evaluating and rewarding the contributions of the academic staff to community service are ambiguous at the university. According to R23,

Service to the community is a broad thing, and the university has not come out to define properly what it should be. … My individual participation in the scripture

union of my church, somewhere, is service to the community, [and so is] my individual participation in a local council in my area. (Personal communication April 17, 2012.)

Likewise, the evaluation process is complicated by the fact that (a) the quality of the TM activities is not always comparable and (b) not all service to, and interactions with, external communities can be documented and/or quantified (Mwiandi, 2010). Thus, the concern is that because members of the academic staff serve the external communities in different ways, using one system to evaluate and reward different forms of community service has the potential to discourage some members of the academic staff from active involvement in some TM activities, particularly those that require a lot of effort and time. Accordingly, R21—drawing from her experience as a member of the promotions board of her college—

noted that if the university were taking the TM seriously,

Maybe, there would be separate categories [of contributions]. People have listed membership to rotary clubs, but if I said I am contributing to, maybe, assisting people to improve sanitation in communities, you only get one point—the same as somebody who says they are a member of their church choir. (Personal communication, April 16, 2012.)

7 Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to explore the institutionalisation of the TM at MUK.

Accordingly, the study was guided by two research questions: (1) How has the Third Mission been institutionalised at Makerere University? (2) How committed is Makerere University to promoting the Third Mission? The first question addressed three interrelated issues: (a) the main TM-related activities carried out at MUK, (b) the rationales for the TM and (c) the approaches employed by the university to institutionalise the TM. To answer this question, the researcher utilised documentary and interview data as well as findings from previous studies (e.g., Benneworth et al., 2009; Carot et al., 2012; Clark, 1998a, 1998b; Molas-Gallart et al., 2002; Nabudere, 2009; Vidal et al., 2002). The second question focused on the institutional commitment of the university—that is, it addressed the issue of “whether and how the key institutional aspects of the university (e.g., policies, structures, and programmes) align with the TM.” To analyse the data and ultimately answer this question, the researcher utilised an analytical framework based on the matrix of institutional commitment to service (Holland, 1997) and other pertinent literature (e.g., Beere et al., 2011; Brukardt et al., 2006a, 2006b; Mohrman, 2010; Vidal et al., 2002).

The analysis focused specifically on eight key organisational features: mission; hire and promotion policy and practices; organisational structure; faculty involvement and commitment; student involvement; community involvement; campus publications and communication; and leadership and support (Beere et al., 2012; Bringle & Hatcher, 1996;

Brukardt et al., 2006a; Furco, 2002; Holland, 2005; Holland, 1997; Kecskes, 2008; Lynton, 1995; Mohrman, 2010; Vidal et al., 2002). This chapter summarises the key findings of the study—the rationales for the TM, the typology of TM activities, the approaches to the institutionalisation of the TM, the challenges to the further institutionalisation of the TM, the institutional commitment to the TM and the key observations—and discusses the suggestions towards the deeper institutionalisation of the TM, the contributions of the study, the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research.