The summarised analysis of the institutional commitment of the MUK to the TM presented in Table 22 shows that the university has some administrative, academic and organisational structures, policies, programmes and practices that foster the TM. Such policies, programmes, structures and practices have helped to transform the TM into a legitimate function of the university—that is, the TM is somehow supported and integrated into the budget, the recruitment and promotion of the academic staff, the undergraduate programmes and the organisational structure of the university. In addition, the TM is expected; there is consensus among the academic staff about the appropriateness of the TM, and some members of academic staff are rather knowledgeable about the TM and are involved in TM-related activities. Nevertheless, the TM and TM-related activities at MUK remain insufficiently supported and coordinated.
its research agenda should embrace not only application-oriented research, but also basic research. The university should, as Mwiandi (2008) observes,
Conduct research that addresses the present problems while at the same time paying attention to innovation and research for tomorrow—basic research. Future developments rely on the basic research conducted through the university but which may not necessarily provide answers for present problems. (p. 152.)
In fact, some of the academics, particularly those from the basic sciences, pointed out that for the university to be more relevant, it should focus on generating knowledge which is not only directly relevant to society but also important to academia. R17, for example, opined as follows:
The Third Mission is good, but I hate the business of having to follow it completely.
I think one should be able to balance, otherwise, as an academic institution; we need to generate knowledge, which other people might not generate, but which we might need for future generations. So, I think the university has to make sure that that part also remains solid and functional. (Personal communication, March 20, 2012.) However, this is not to downplay the potential benefits of networking and partnerships to basic research. Instead, the argument is that because of its disciplinary focus, basic research is normally carried out in contexts that are largely governed by the academic interests of specific communities (Gibbons et al., 1994), and, thus, it is rarely carried out in partnerships between the academic and non-academic partners. In addition, because basic research often focuses on research topics that aim to expand the frontiers of knowledge within certain disciplines, it is largely characterised by limited societal accountability (Gibbons et al., 1994) and, at times, undervalued and less funded. Therefore, although it is vital for MUK to underscore and support the involvement of non-academic stakeholders in its research activities—basic and applied—the university should not leave the funding for basic research to market forces, which tend to favour applied research. Although it is true, as the “African Innovation Outlook, 2010” reveals, that the research productivity of African universities is low and that Africa’s share of the world’s research output is small90—and, for that reason, one might wonder whether the research productivity of African universities merits any conversation—the contribution of African universities to the scientific production of Africa cannot be ignored91 (AU-NEPAD, 2010).
90 The few African countries in which scientific output is substantial and even growing are not as productive as other developing countries elsewhere in the world (AU-NEPAD, 2010, p. 107).
91 The smallest science systems on the continent often rely heavily on the role and contribution of one (of a few) public universities as the main producers of knowledge. In countries such as Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland, there are no significant research institutes outside of the national universities, and 80%–90%
of the small research output of these countries is generated by academic staff at these institutions. This is also true of countries such as Mali, Angola, Lesotho, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Uganda, in which one university—University of Bamako, Agostinho Neto, National University of Lesotho, Eduardo Mondlane
Furthermore, because much of the literature on the TM focuses on issues such as the transfer of knowledge or technology and the creation of spin-off firms, all of which underscore the immediate application and commercialisation of knowledge, discussion about the TM often ignores the importance of basic research and/or disciplines (hard–pure and soft–pure academic fields) and non-commercial TM activities. Yet, the TM embraces commercial and non-commercial activities and covers all academic disciplines although it can appear in different forms across disciplines. The concern, then, is how to promote the TM without necessarily neglecting basic disciplines—for example, arts and humanities and sciences—and non-commercial activities. Although the commercial aspects of the TM at MUK (for example, continuing education, consultancy and the commercialisation of research results) have the potential to generate substantial funds for the university to supplement its current revenue streams—government subvention, donor support and internally generated revenues—the aim of the TM, just as the interviewees stressed, should be to provide useful services, not to generate funds per se. In short, the commercialisation of research and education services should not ends in themselves; although the university should be free to diversify its funding sources and to generate funds from some of its TM- related activities, it should not abandon the fundamental academic standards, values and missions for which it exists. In essence, the university should be market-smart but mission- centred (Zemsky et al., 2005). Accordingly, the agenda for the TM at any university should (a) correspond to the mission, academic strength, history, culture, values and priorities—
for instance, teaching and learning goals and research agenda92—of the university; (b) utilise and advance the knowledge potential of that university; and (c) consider the needs of the external communities.
Third, although each of the organisational factors that constitute the matrix of institutional commitment to service (see Tables 4 and 5) contributes to the “sticking power and staying power [of the TM]” (Lawson, 2002, p. 91), any attempts to meaningfully institutionalise the TM require us to treat these factors as interdependent aspects to avoid inconsistencies that could limit the involvement and commitment of the staff, the students and the communities. Likewise, any attempts to examine the institutional commitment of any university to the TM should consider the organisational attributes (see Tables 4, 5, 6 and 22) in their entirety to avoid mistaking strategic responses by universities to their external constraints (Greenwood et al., 2008; Zucker, 1991) for genuine efforts to promote the TM. Even so, it is difficult to find a university campus that has fully developed all the aforementioned institutional features, because becoming an engaged university is an evolutionary process; all engaged universities remain “works in progress” (Lawson, 2002, p.
University, Addis Ababa University and Makerere University respectively—dominates the production of science (AU-NEPAD, 2010, p. 106).
92 The research agenda for MUK, for example, focuses on six thematic areas: research into education for development; food, nutrition and value addition; sustainable environment development; good governance, equity (including gender) and service delivery; health (infectious and lifestyle-related diseases) and the utilisation and conservation of natural resources (http://mak.ac.ug/research/ research-agenda).
91). In addition, even though each of the organisational factors discussed herein is essential for the full institutionalisation of the TM, the emphasis that HEIs place on each factor varies among institutions. Furco and Miller (2009), for example, note that whereas some institutions use the TM to advance teaching or to conduct more socially relevant research, others use it to “advance faith-based missions, improve town–gown relations, address local emergencies and crises, or develop an ethic of volunteerism and service among students”
(p. 47).
Fourth, much as it is the responsibility of MUK to develop and share knowledge with, and learn from, the external communities, the focus of the TM of the university should not be on how much the university staff and students “share in the life of the village [external communities], but [on] how much their ideas, the knowledge and skills that they produce, can transform the life of the village” (Ajayi et al., 1996, p. 190). In essence, the university should pursue excellence not only with respect to teaching and research but also in regard to the TM. In addition, much as the TM of the university—networking and partnerships—
requires that the university become part of, and more relevant to, the wider society, the university should not endanger its academic standards and values in order to serve and/
or engage with society. To work together with, and learn from, society, R5, for example, opined as follows:
What we [the university] need most, I think, is to take what society has a notch higher, not to follow what they are doing as it is, because there are technologies out there in the villages that have remained there for centuries, and they are not taking us anywhere. Therefore, what the university needs to do is to bring those technologies into the laboratories, carry out research on them, improve them, and then industrialise them. … So that’s the way we can work with society but not going back to sleep with society. (Personal communication, April 12, 2012.)
Fifth, the successful institutionalisation of the TM at MUK requires the commitment of not only the university but also the external stakeholders, particularly the government.
Such commitment can be in the form of funding and policy guidelines. Although the government should not directly interfere with the focus and nature of the TM at MUK and the other universities, it should create funding mechanisms, policy frameworks and assessment tools that support the TM at the universities. A review of the literature shows that although the key national policy documents—for example, the National Development Plan, the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy and the National Science, Technology and Innovation Plan (2012/2013–2017/2018)—underscore the importance of HE and HEIs to national development, there is a lack of consistency between national and institutional policies regarding the expected role of HEIs in socioeconomic development (Cloete et al., 2011). Thus, the purpose of having clear national policies, plans and funding mechanisms should be to create a comprehensible and shared national agenda (rather than the same type of TM activities) that can be pursued by all HEIs in ways that reflect their missions, historical and geographical contexts and priorities. Therefore, although the
government should not necessarily drive the TM agendas of the universities, “it should provide the necessary encouragement, support, and direction” (Lazarus et al., 2008, p.
77). In addition, just as MUK should inform the external communities about its mission, activities, priorities, academic programmes, resources and innovations, the government should draw more on the knowledge potential of the university (and other universities) when designing or reviewing national policies, because much as these universities continue to be besieged by several challenges, they (particularly MUK) are the main sites for the production of knowledge and high-level manpower in Uganda.