Multiple Streams Running Dry: Third-Mission Policies at a Czech Research University

  • Jan Kohoutek
  • Karel Šima
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education book series (PSGHE)

Abstract

This chapter examines the third mission of universities through a case study of Palacký University in Olomouc (UPOL), one of the few traditional, research-intensive universities in the Czech Republic. To our knowledge, no empirical study on the realization of the third mission at a Czech research-oriented university has been conducted to date; we intend to fill this gap with the study presented in this chapter. More specifically, we analyze how the third-mission agenda was set and enacted at UPOL and examine the associated ambiguity of intention.

References

  1. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbo, P., & Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F. R. (2016). John Kingdon and the evolutionary approach to public policy and agenda setting. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda setting (pp. 53–65). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benneworth, P. (Ed.). (2013). University engagement with socially excluded communities. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2015). Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: Institutionalizing the universities’ third mission in the Swedish context. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benneworth, P., & Pinheiro, R. (2017). Involving universities in the regional upgrading in the periphery: Lessons from Northern Europe. In M. Fonseca & U. Fratesi (Eds.), Regional upgrading in Southern Europe: Spatial disparities and human capital (pp. 299–321). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Benneworth, P., Pinheiro, R., & Karlsen, J. (2017). Strategic agency and institutional change: Investigating the role of universities in regional innovation systems (RISs). Regional Studies, 51(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benneworth, P., Pinheiro, R., & Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2016). One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 731–735.Google Scholar
  9. Cairney, P. (2014). Future of the multiple streams framework: Moving policy theory forward. Paper presented at the Post-Kingdon Workshop, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
  10. Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cairney, P., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). Multiple streams approach: A flexible metaphor presents an opportunity to operationalize agenda-setting processes. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda setting (pp. 87–105). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charles, D., & Benneworth, P. (2002). Evaluating the regional contribution of an HEI: A benchmarking approach. Good practice. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  13. Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eggins, H. (Ed.). (2013). Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gornitzka, Å., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (Eds.). (2005). Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2002). Implementation analysis in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 27, pp. 381–423). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Berhal, A., Raney, H. L., et al. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  21. Kohoutek, J., Pinheiro, R., Čábelková, I., & Šmídová, M. (2017). Higher education institutions in peripheral regions: A literature review and framework of analysis. Higher Education Policy, 30(4), 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Ochrana, F., Plaček, M., & Půček, M. J. (2016). Shortfall of strategic governance and strategic management in the Czech Republic. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 10(2), 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinheiro, R. (2011). In the region, for the region? A comparative study of the institutionalisation of the regional mission of universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  26. Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P., & Jones, G. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and regional development: An assessment of tensions and contradictions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P., & Jones, G. (2015). Beyond the obvious: Tensions and volitions surrounding the contributions of universities to regional development and innovation. In L. M. C. Farinha, J. J. M. Ferreira, H. L. Smith, & S. Bagchi-Sen (Eds.), Handbook of research on global competitive advantage through innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 150–172). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  28. Pinheiro, R., Karlsen, J., Kohoutek, J., & Young, M. (2017). Universities’ third mission: Global discourses and national imperatives. Higher Education Policy, 30(4), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinheiro, R., & Kohoutek, J. (2017, March). PERIF project: Rationale, conceptualisations and overall findings. Presentation given at the final conference of the project Contributions of higher education institutions to socio-economic development of peripheral regions in Norway and the Czech Republic (PERIF), Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  30. Pinheiro, R., Langa, P., & Pausits, A. (2015). One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinheiro, R., & Stensaker, B. (2014). Designing the entrepreneurial university: The interpretation of a global idea. Public Organization Review, 14(4), 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Potůček, M. (2014). Strategic governance in Central and Eastern Europe: From concepts to reality. Educational Leadership and Management Studies, 33(1), 87–96.Google Scholar
  33. Šima, K., Benneworth, P., Pinheiro, R., & Beseda, J. (2017). What are the cultural preconditions of universities’ regional engagement? Towards a disciplinary sensitive model of the university–region Interface. Higher Education Policy, 30(4), 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Šima, K., Kohoutek, J., & Šmídová, O. (2016). Case university report: Palacký University, Olomouc (UPOL). Retrieved from http://www.perifproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Case_university_report_UPOL_final.pdf.
  35. Šima K., & Pabian, P. (2013). Ztracený Humboldtův ráj: ideologie jednoty výzkumu a výuky ve vysokém školství [Humboldt’s lost paradise: The ideology of the unity of research and teaching in higher education]. Praha: SLON Sociologické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
  36. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci (UPOL). (2005). Dlouhodobý záměr vzdělávací a vědecké, výzkumné, vývojové, umělecké a další tvůrčí činnosti na období 2006–2010 [The long-term plan for educational, scientific, research, development, artistic, and other creative activities for the 2006–2010 period]. Olomouc: UPOL.Google Scholar
  37. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci (UPOL). (2010). Dlouhodobý záměr činnosti Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci na období 2011–2015 [The long-term plan of activities of Palacký University for the 2011–2015 period]. Olomouc: UPOL.Google Scholar
  38. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci (UPOL). (2013). Aktualizace dlouhodobého záměru vzdělávací a vědecké, výzkumné, vývojové, umělecké a tvůrčí činnosti Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci na rok 2014 [The update to the long-term plan for educational, scientific, research, development, artistic, and creative activities of Palacký University for 2014]. Olomouc: UPOL.Google Scholar
  39. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Zahariadis, N. (2016). Setting the agenda on agenda setting: Definitions, concepts and controversies. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda setting (pp. 1–22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zahariadis, N., & Exadaktylos, T. (2016). Policies that succeed and programs that fail: Ambiguity, conflict, and crisis in Greek higher education. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kohoutek
    • 1
  • Karel Šima
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Higher Education StudiesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations