The Rise of the University’s Third Mission

  • Arend Zomer
  • Paul Benneworth


The last decades have seen a fundamental upheaval in the organisation of modern life, and the university as an institution has been as widely affected by these changes as business, governments, and civil society groups. Higher education has been confronted with increasing marketisation of the State and aggressive re-regulation of the public sector. Internationalisation has created new potential markets for students, alongside increasing access to research collaborators, but it opened universities up to competition with and comparison against institutions in other countries. The growing importance of knowledge production and innovation for economic life has created new potential roles for universities and challenged the traditional societal privileges and monopolies which they have long enjoyed. But these changes have come at the same time as an evolution in the process of change: a growing role for the State in creating and regulating markets in public services has come with a greater role for the State in guiding this reform process.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46, 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benneworth, P. (2007). Leading innovation: Building effective regional coalitions for innovation. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.Google Scholar
  3. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. A. (2009). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education. DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.Google Scholar
  4. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Chesborough, H. (2003). Open innovation, the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Daalder, H. (1982). The sudden revolution and the sluggish aftermath: A retrospective since 1968. In H. Daalder & E. Shils (Eds.), Universities, politicians and bureaucrats: Europe and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Delanty, G. (2002). The university and modernity: A history of the present. In K. Robins & F. Webster (Eds.), The virtual university: Knowledge, markets and management. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  11. Delors, J. (1988). Our Europe: The community and national development. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. EC. (1995). Green paper on innovation. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. EC. (2003). Communication from the commission: The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. EC. (2005). Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: Enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon strategy. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-Industry-Government innovation in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fawcett, C. B. (1924). The provinces of England. A study of some geographical aspects of devolution (Rev. ed., 1961). London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
  17. Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Goddard, J. B., & Chatterton, P. (2003). The response of universities to regional needs. In F. Boekema, E. Kuypers, & R. Rutten (Eds.), Economic geography of higher education: Knowledge, infrastructure and learning regions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Greenhow, T. M. (1831, April 5). The expediency of establishing an academic institution, of the nature of a college or university, for the promotion of literature and science, more especially amongst the middle classes of the community, briefly considered. Paper read to the Literature and Philosophical Society of Newcastle upon Tyne, 13 pp. Available in Newcastle University Library Archive.Google Scholar
  21. Grit, K. (2000). Economisering als probleem: Een studie naar de bedrijfsmatige stad en de ondernemende universiteit. Assen, NL: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  22. Hippel, E. von. (2006). Democratising innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hutchinson. (1975). The origins of the university grants committee. Minerva, 13(4), 583.Google Scholar
  24. Innovatieplatform. (2007a). Intentieverklaring valorisatie. Ondertekend door: VSNU, NWO, Platform Beta Techniek, HBO Raad, STW, TNO, MKB Nederland, VNO-NCW, GTIs.Google Scholar
  25. Innovatieplatform. (2007b). Verzilveren van kennis: Valorisatie van universitaire kennis.Google Scholar
  26. Jongbloed, B. W. A. (2004). Mapping university-business interactions, a research proposal to identify indicators of interaction.Google Scholar
  27. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2007). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilger, C., & Bartenbach, K. (2002). New rules for German Professors. Science, 298(5596), 1173–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landabaso, M. (1999). Innovation and regional development policy. In R. Rutten, S. Bakkers, K. Morgan, & F. Boekema (Eds.), Learning regions, theory, policy and practice. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2004). Public sector research: A growing role in innovation systems. Minerva, 42, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., et al. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23, 279–286.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, B. R. (2003). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. MOCW. (2003). Wetenschapsbudget 2004. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.Google Scholar
  35. MOCW. (2005). Valorisatie van onderzoek als taak van de universiteiten. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.Google Scholar
  36. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream ctivities. Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  37. Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J.-M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neave, G. (2000). ‘Universities’ responsibility to society: An historical exploitation of an enduring issue. In G. Neave (Ed.), Universities’ responsibility to society: International perspectives. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  40. NFU, VNO-NCW, & VSNU. (2004). Beschermde kennis is bruikbare kennis: Innovation charter bedrijfsleven en kennisinstellingen.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2001). Fostering high-tech spin-offs: A public strategy for innovation. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  42. OECD. (2004). Science and innovation policy: Key challenges and opportunities. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  43. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, M. (1992). European technology policy evolution: Convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation, 12(4), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salomon, J. J. (1985). Science as a commodity: Policy changes, issues and threats. In M. Gibbons & B. Wittrock (Eds.), Science as a commodity: Threats to the open community of scholars. Harlow, Essex (UK): Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
  47. Schutte, F. (2000). The university-industry relations of an entrepreneurial university – the case of this university and of Twente. In F. Schutte & P. C. van der Sijde (Eds.), The university and its regions: Examples of regional development from the European consortium of innovative universities. Dortmund: ECIU.Google Scholar
  48. Shinn, C. (1980). The beginnings of the University Grants Committee. History of Education, 9(3), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharp, M. (1990). The single market and European policies for advanced technologies. In C. Crouch & D. Marquand (Eds.), The politics of 1992: Beyond the single European market. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tijssen, R., Hollanders, H., van Steen, J., & Nederhof, A. (2006). Wetenschaps- en technologie- indicatoren 2005. Nederlands Observatorium van Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT).Google Scholar
  53. van den Kroonenberg, H. (1996). Ondernemen met kennis (Knowledge-based enterprise). Enschede: University of Twente Press.Google Scholar
  54. van der Meulen, B. J. R., & Rip, A. (2001). The Netherlands: Science policy by mediation. In P. Laredo & P. Mustar (Eds.), Research and innovation policies in the new global economy: An international comparative analysis (pp. 297–324). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  55. Van der Ven, A., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. van Tilburg, J. J., & Kreijen, M. (2003). Researchers op ondernemerspad; internationale benchmark studie naar spin-offs uit kennisinstellingen. Den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken.Google Scholar
  57. van Vught, F. (Ed.), (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  58. VSNU. (2005). Onderzoek van waarde: Activiteiten van universiteiten gericht op kennisvalorisatie. Den Haag: Vereniging van universiteiten.Google Scholar
  59. Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic ‘steady state’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ziman, J. M. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zomer, A. H., Jongbloed, B. W. A., & Enders, J. (2010). Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva, 48(3), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arend Zomer
  • Paul Benneworth

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations