The third mission of the University
A case study of the University of the Republic-Uruguay

PRELIMINARY (second) VERSION
January 9, 2007

UniDev Project
Developing Universities: The Evolving Role of Academic Institutions in Innovation Systems and Development

Isabel Bortagaray
University of the Republic

1.- Introduction

This is a case study of the University of the Republic from Uruguay, centered on the perceptions of diverse people about the university and its missions. The study is based on 45 in-depth interviews covering a broad range of institutional belongings, from academia to enterprises and from Parliament to trade unions. From the total interviewees, 35 are men and 10 are women.
The fieldwork was done between May and July 2006. The latter is not without consequences, given that during this period a hot debate associated with the process of electing a new Rector took place. In fact, even if the decision-making within the university was related to the choice of a person to replace the former Rector, who was eight years on duty, the debate was fairly wider and reached a far wider public. It became a national discussion that revolved around the university: what it should be, how should it be transformed to achieve a better fit with its own missions and the development of the country, who and how should be involved in such transformation. The need for changes was a central part of the debate; it is within this uncommon climate that the fieldwork was done.
Another remark concerning the fieldwork relates to a possible bias in the opinions provided during the interviews. People were given the opportunity to express themselves about a complex institution and to make suggestions about what changes were needed: the trend to point critically to what should be changed can give the impression of an overall negative image instead of a more balanced view.
There are some convergent perceptions among the interviews. The key role played by the University, as well as its legitimacy and respect within Uruguayan society is strongly highlighted by all interviewees, mainly due to the fact that it is the only public University and the perception that it has played a vital role in the country’s history. However, even acknowledging the latter, interviewees also indicate that this perception should not be taken for granted, at least not any more. Now is the time for the university to show its outputs, be more transparent and accountable. Furthermore, there is a shared understanding that the University is undergoing critical structural issues, regarding its size in terms of students (more than 70,000), scarce budget, and its ability to keep the quality of education, among others. Summing-up: a great institution but challenged from many sides, with mixed feelings about its outputs.
Another convergent perception is that the university suffers from important communication problems. Strong complaints relate to the bad and weak communication strategy of the university, that make the public unaware of things that are happening, of relevant efforts regarding university-productive sector partnerships and even of research results. The underlying criticism is that since the University budget comes from government, it should take as a duty to let society know how it uses the public money. This criticism cuts across all interviewees, even those academicians within the University.
Several respondents expressed that these situations could be taken as an opportunity to openly debate and find novel and creative solutions to problems: it could be taken as an inflexion point.
The discussion on the third mission crosscuts the whole work. It is an open question, and its definition is an ongoing process. It is interesting to note that the issue of the third mission, usually known as extension -which has been a traditional mission in Latin American universities - was mentioned by the interviewees before I would ask about it. The need to redefine it was a shared expression of interest among them.
The paper is organized around six sections. In section 2 some background information about the Universidad de la República is provided, followed by Section 3 with the methology of the study. Section 4 presents the results of the study, centered on the expectations and the responsibilities to fulfill such expectations expressed during the fieldwork. The third mission is outlined in Section 5 and some final remarks are included in Section 6.

2.- Background
The University of the Republic is the only public university in Uruguay, and concentrates more than 60% of the research conducted in the country. It is more than 150 years old. The first attempt to create it was triggered by a Senator, D.A. Larrañaga, a catholic priest who passed a law that was approved for this purpose in the first government of Uruguay, in 1833. In 1849 the University was formally inaugurated by the President. A century after, in 1952, it was granted autonomy by the Constitution, and since 1958 it is ruled by an Organic Law (Ley Orgánica) that establishes a collective governance structure between students, professors and alumni (Bentancur and Paris de Oddone 1995).
In the 1970s, the University, as many other institutions in the country, was severely marked by the consequences of a military dictatorship that began in 1973 and lasted until 1984. Research groups and research capacities were dismantled during that time as some schools were closed, and a large number of scientists had to migrate. Even after the re-instauration of the democratic government in 1985, it took some time to bring back part of the exiled community of scientists. Some programs were particularly successful in this regard, like the Program for the Development of the Basic Sciences (PEDECIBA program), able to push resources into the system to attract and then maintain scientists back in the country .
The UR involves 7,528 teaching and research positions, from which 58.6% are in the initial two levels of the career ladder (UdelaR 2006). From the total positions, 554 are full time, up to 2005 (CSIC 2006), the basic sciences being the best represented of all the research directions (CSIC 2006).
Access to university is completely free and not constrained. Its budget depends on government funding for salaries, research and operation. External funding, i.e., private sector and foreign, enables to conduct research, update equipment and contract mainly junior researchers on a punctual basis.
Currently its enrolment involves more than 70,000 students. The scarcity of scholarships forces students to work while studying, a situation shared by 60% of students, leading to very long careers and a relatively small rate of graduations. Too many students for too many years in a university with a very scarce budget have led to an extremely complex situation. There has been some debate about the need to review the sources of funding, the possibility of charging a fee or constraining the entry to the system to control size and efficiency. However, these alternatives produce mixed feelings and resistance within as well as outside the University, the former because it can discourage even more the entrance to the university and the latter because such a constraint was implemented during the dictatorship.
The rate of postgraduates has significantly increased in the last decades, and particularly since the year 2000, even though they are still a very small part of the tertiary student population (see Figure 1).

One distinctive feature of Uruguayan culture has been its orientation towards Humanities. The technical disciplines, and even the basic sciences have been outsiders to the traditional culture. Still nowadays that trend remains. S&T academic programs have a much lower share of the total students population, as it is shown in Figure 2.

The university is centralized in Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay with 1.3 million people (40% of the country’s total population is concentrated in the capital); there is also a regional unit in the north of the country (Regional Norte), but where only some of the professional options are available. Migration of university students reinforces a problematic migratory trend of Uruguay: from the countryside to the cities, and from the cities to capital city, this phenomenon of migration in layers has been emptying the rural environment . Centralization occurs at all levels: from the education system to transport and roads, which are all radial connecting to Montevideo.
The university has been a powerful drive of social mobility in Uruguay. This has been acknowledged in a famous play from the early 20th century, “My son, the Doctor”, which title has become a popular way of expressing the high status of a university degree. Actually, university graduates enjoy a quite better record of employment that the population as a whole. There are several reasons that explain why the university is seen as a carrier of opportunities, at individual as well as at societal level. This situation should be kept in mind when analyzing the answers of the interviewees.

3.- Methodology

This work is based on the analysis of 45 in-depth interviews conducted to different social, economic and political actors, between May and July 2006. The list of interviewees includes academic researchers, representatives of the University’s students, and of the regional University’s office, senators of the three main political parties, representatives of five ministries, (Education and Culture; Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries; Industry, Energy and Mining; and Housing, Territorial Planning and Environment), one from the Labour Union Movement, others from the private and public productive sector, representatives of public organizations (NARO, and from a certifying laboratory), and one from the private universities. From the total interviewees, 10 are women, and 35 men (Table 3).
In spite of their different roles, trajectories, and jobs, most of the interviewees have passed through the University at least as students, which illustrate one feature of a traditional reality of the country.

Table 3. List of interviewees

Academicians
UdelaR (10 researchers + 1 regional director +
1 student representative) 12
Public Research Institute (Biological Research-IIBCE) 1
Technical Institute (UTU) 1
Representative of Private university 1
Senators 4
Ministries (MEC, MGAP, MIDES, MIEM, MVOTMA) 5
Municipal government 1
Public non-govt. Organizations 2
Productive sector
Public 4
Private 10
Labor Union (PIT CNT) 1
NGOs and media 3
Subtotal
Women 10
Men 35
Total 45

4.- Expectations and responsibilities

This section outlines and discusses the main expectations about the University, including its roles and tasks, and then points out the loci of responsibilities to face those expectations. Regarding the latter, an attempt will be made to classify the opinions given around what is under the University’s responsibility, what should it try to change, and what should be under the orbit of other agents and organizations in the country. That is, answers to the following questions will be searched through the opinions expressed by the interviewees: Up to what extent can the university face alone those expectations? Is within its scope to fulfill them?

4.1.- The role of the University: expected and real, present and past

Expectations about the role and scope of University are many, and very high. They add up to a long list of issues, some of which are enormous for a single institution, no matter how important it is. The question on the current role of the University is almost always first approached in normative terms, after which it is hard to get a very positive answer when it comes to the real role. A consequence of this combination of criticism and high expectations is an intertwining of strength and weakness, of positive and negative perceptions. The ideal role is charged with extremely high expectations about a wide diversity of issues. Some are about doing better what it already does, like researching, or “…making people think, not only to those who are in the inside, but to the whole society as well”, or being responsible for most university training and graduation. Others are enormous tasks that could never be achieved by a single institution, exceeding the orbit of the university, such as the idea of being “the North for the country”. This guiding role is expected by many interviewees, with more or less intensity. This enormous expectation refers in part to the high legitimacy hold by the university, while another part of it naturally results from having the university as the protagonist of the study, thus all the bullets go to the same target.
It can be said that the university is perceived as a super-institution, able of leading the country to a different situation, able of changing patterns that are located far away the orbit of the University. It is also perceived as a part of the cultural identity of the society in general.
Such large demands and expectations are closely tied to strong criticisms. As in every process of idealization, it is difficult for the idealized object to fulfill expectations.
The University is a highly respected and legitimated institution in Uruguay, a referent in the history of the country, with its more than hundred and fifty years. Having university’s studies has been highly valued in the collective imaginary of Uruguayan society. But according to these views, it seems as if it would be the only institution with enough permanence and continuity in the country to carry on that task. The high appreciation is no longer a blank check: “… who knows for how long if it keeps giving its back to the society that makes it possible.”
Yet, the University encompasses multiple and heterogeneous schools and institutes with different realities, approaches, capacities, and degrees of connectedness with society. Thus, the singular University is misleading and makes it difficult for interviewees to refer to it as a unity given the existing diversity inside the University.
The reference to the current role compared to the past generates two types of responses: one positive and another more negative. The opinion that there is a positive trend comparing present and past is mainly based on the higher involvement with the productive sector evidenced during the last decade. The university has been strengthening its ties to the productive sector since the 1990s, and that is very positive for all the interviewees.
The perception that ‘every past situation was better’ refers to two different types of emphases among this sub-group of individuals. A first set of critical opinions highlights the impoverished quality of the university’s education compared to the 1950s and 60s, before the dismantlement provoked by more than a decade of authoritarian rule, aggravated by a lost in the quality of secondary education, which used to act as a filter and no longer does, and by a drastic increase in the number of university students without a correlative improvement in the infrastructure. For them, the university played a totally different role in the 1950s and 60s when quality was superb and students had a very close tie to professors. A second set of interviewees considers that the University used to be a key actor in the debate of the country’s situation and future, but not anymore. They would expect a higher involvement and guidelines into what the future will look like, what to focus on, and how to anticipate to it. In this sense, in the past the University was more involved and committed with the country’s future than what it is today.

4.2.- Responsibilities

4.2.1.- Internal responsibilities

(a) Crisis and recovery
Overall there is a perception of an ongoing crisis in the University looking for urgent change. Even if the perception of a need for change reflects a deep and shared conviction, it should be recalled that the interviews were made during one of the longer and wider debate around he university since the democratic recovery, which means that reflections, criticisms and proposals were in the air. The University is perceived at a crossroads and ought to move into a different direction from the one it has followed in the last decades. Many of these problems are structural, and to overcome them it should undergo a radical change, including the revision of each one of its mechanisms, even the foundational law. In that sense, an interviewee points out: “everything should be discussed and challenged, even the Organic Law because it belongs to a different time and the world has changed so much.”
The urgency has a positive counterside as it involves opportunities for change. To some extent, the idea transmitted is that it is a positive urgency: the crisis is very deep but precisely because of that there is hope. In a simplified manner, the idea is that the crisis is so deep and the need for change is so urgent -as if it is the life of the university (and the country) what is at stake-, that change has to be radical and cannot be but positive.
Part of the perceived problems relate to the heaviness of the university structure, its slowness and rigidity, aggravated by its large size, scarce budget, and impoverished infrastructure. The large number of students is a bottleneck with a difficult solution. Students confront massiveness and their chance to have a close interaction with professors is small. Their exposure to other aspects of academic life, even having laboratory practice gets reduced, harming the set of research skills with which students graduate. These are the issues that lead to negative assessments about the current role of the university compared to the past one.
Another problem refers to the very low salaries paid. This harms not only the quality of research and education, but also risk the migration of skilled labor, leading to brain drain. It is a waste of resources at the end of the pipeline: those more talented and skilled migrate after society has invested in their training. It also leads to an over-reliance on external funding, and the university is trapped in this situation. On this point the criticism is that the university has not been able of creating alternative sources of funding, asking society for a larger budget.
The government of the university is a collective endeavor in the hands of students, professors and alumni. This democratic structure is considered an advantage, for some. The problem is not the government structure, but its lack of dynamism, rigidity, slowness, and excessive discussion lacking execution and efficiency. The pace of the university’s decision-making is dysfunctional, and completely disconnected of the regular rhythm of the surrounding environment.
It might seem contradictory, however, that those inside the university criticize the excessive discussion. But it is not, because this problem is about an excess of negotiation and above all a very complicated system of decision-making that prioritizes consensus and arguing over action, dismisses the span of time involved in the process, and a practice that emphasizes rhetoric and argumentation over a pragmatic, output- and solution-oriented system. The strongest complaint claims for a change in the rationale and attitude. A researcher points out “we have to define lines of action and try them out. If they do not work, just change them. But some people in the university think that we must keep discussing for 20 years and then define how to act. Fortunately the number of people willing to jump into the water to find out if we can swim has increased.”
Discussing and dialoguing, strategizing, prospective thinking and planning are all characteristics weakly present in the university, according to interviewees. The institution responds late and slowly to incoming demands while it should have a radically opposite attitude, it should preview, forecast, and have a pro-active and offensive stand. It should be looking at what strengths it will have to have ten years from now, what disciplines to begin to cultivate, what infrastructure must be assured, and what needs should be fulfilled. And then, what mechanisms and strategies should be put in place to achieve those goals. Instead, the university is perceived as spinning around, suffering from an internal dynamic that makes difficult any possibility of change. The fear to change, and structural conservatism are seen as major obstacles that trap the university within its own space.
The restructuring should include changes in the curricula and disciplines offered. Renewal of the programs and higher mobility between disciplines and schools are repeated claims among interviewees. For them, the difficulty to respond to these claims shows again its fear to change.

(b) Higher connectedness
A second range of problems of the University relate to its perceived enclosure and isolation. Interviewees agree on the idea that the University is, to an important extent, outside, and distant. Criticisms are intense at this point and focus on an attitude that can be seen as dismissing society. One of the strongest and louder complaints is about the isolation of the university. The expectation goes in the direction of a higher connection with society, letting it in and going out towards it. It is about opening up the discussion and debate, get feedback towards where to move, and how to get there.
The intensity of these critiques goes in hand with the enormous expectations about it. University is so important, and perceived as such a big institution in the collective imaginary that it will hardly fulfill all those demands and expectations. It is seen as isolated and enclosed, but this distance and isolation is only part of the picture. There is also loneliness; it is left alone as an academic actor. This problem is not exclusive of this University but a problem common to other Universities in the region (Arocena and Sutz 2001).
These views of distance relate to different dimensions: (i) problems of communication and diffusion, (ii) the University’s silence and invisibility, and (iii) its relationship with the productive sector and with society in general.

(i) Communication and diffusion
The university has not thoroughly assumed the need to communicate its achievements, and failures, what does take place within its buildings, what do researchers do, what is it that happens in the intramural life. This is a consensual opinion and severely pointed out among the interviewees. The perception is that not only the university does not tell accurately to the outside what it does and how or who does it, but that also inside the university researchers ignore to a great extent what is done in other schools. The complaints point to the lack of conceptualization of communication about the work done inside the university’s buildings as part of the researchers’ job, a necessity as well as an obligation and a duty. This conceptualization does not seem to permeate the research institution; it has been left to individuals’ willingness, and in many cases even though the intention is there, the result is not achieved.
All the interviewees point out this problem as a critical one that requires an urgent solution. As mentioned by an interviewee: “We do not know what happens inside, it does a very bad job in communicating itself, they do not feel the need/obligation of showing what do they do. Communication is a duty for those whose job is financed by the society”. Communication has also been pointed out as a critical feature by the nucleous of the university research community, the full-time researchers, in a very recent survey about ideas for a National Strategic Plan on Science, Technology and Innovation (Bianco et al, 2006). As one of the answers goes: “(what is needed is) promotion and diffusion of the knowledge generated by the academic sector, demonstrating the already acquired capacity of the human resources and their role in the social devolution of such knowledge. It would be important to promote the interest of the mass media for the products and functions of the national academic sector.”

(ii) Silence and invisibility
It is clear and consensual from the interviews that the university is crosscutting a critical time, which entails an urgent need of change that requires as a first step facing it. It is also consensual the demand for a louder voice: every interviewee argued about the need of an extended and inclusive debate and discussion around the university, including reviewing everything, from its foundational mechanisms and rules currently in place, to future goals and expectations, including content and shape, how to operate and what to offer.
There is a view of the University as being “distant”: this has to do with its perceived silence and invisibility regarding key issues for the country. As mentioned above, people expect a higher involvement in themes that are vital to the country’s future. For instance, the University could, and should, according to individuals, contribute to reaching the plan of having a ‘productive Uruguay’ (Uruguay productivo), one of the pillars of the new government goals. However, the feeling is that “it is absent, it does not participate”. For instance, energy is a big problem here. And there are some research groups working on that. “But who knows about what are they doing. Do they have the right of keeping it for themselves? No, they do not. They have to show that there, inside, they are creating knowledge”, in the words of an individual.
The University holds a treasure that is unknown and invisible. It is hidden in the extreme fragmentation of laboratories and departments. One necessary thing to do is to make this reservoir visible, not only to the outside environment, but also within it as schools are unaware of what others have inside. It should have an office dedicated to transfer and connect supply and demand, as well.

(iii) Relationships with the productive sector and with society

The university-productive sector relationship
This relationship has gotten closer and strengthened in the last decade but there is still a divorce between the two actors. It needs to overcome the punctual basis in which it is performed, as well as its high reliance on individual drives instead of on institututinal routines. It is far from an institutionalized practice. The weakness of those ties respond to multiple factors from both sides. The university claims that the business community still does not consider knowledge as part of the productive chain, and local knowledge is undervalued compared to foreign solutions. The under-valuation of local knowledge is not an exclusive problem of this university, or even the country. The very low value of endogenous knowledge, and the also low involvement of industry in R&D investment are common patterns across Latin American countries (Arocena and Sutz 2001).
The business community in turn, adds that the timing and excessive bureaucratic university procedures obstacles any collaborative efforts; and that the university has preconceptions about them that prevent a closer interaction. “The problem is in our minds, in both sides. The business men see the University as a very politicized structure, and researchers see us as something that could contaminate them”.
The interviewees, both in the university and outside, distinguish between the public and the private productive sectors. They agree that the public side of the productive sector shares with the university the public character and rationale, that there is a natural connection that helps the relationship, and that public companies are key counterparts in university’s linkages. They constitute the larger share of the demand for university’s knowledge. It is interesting to note however, that this is not so clearly perceived by the population in general. According to (Arocena 2003), even if the government demands for academic knowledge is potentially very high, the public perception holds that government does not use much academic knowledge for decision-making. Furthermore, government is the least important user in the category of “uses academic knowledge very much for decision-making”. Perceptions from researchers and from the general public seem not to agree.
Some university schools are more prone to engage in linkages with productive sectors than others. From the interviews the consensual perception is that the school of Engineering has pioneered the relationship with the productive sector, particularly after the mandate of a specific dean during the 1990s. It is true that this school has close and strong interactions with the public productive sector, including public companies providers of electricity, water, telecommunications and petroleum refinery. Chemistry is also mentioned as a paradigmatic case of enhanced relationships with the productive sector, since the 1990s. These schools together with Economics are examples of an increasing interaction with the productive sector.
But it is not true that the relationship with the productive sector starts with the Engineering school, or that it possesses the closest linkages. The agronomy school has been traditionally connected with production, including cooperative groups, farmers, and companies. These ties have not been limited to Montevideo, but have been across the country and on different sectors, from dairy to forestry.
This is evidenced in different data sets. According to the Research Council of the University, and based on projects data, the agro-vet area accounts for most funded projects in the funding modality of relationship with the productive sector, for the period 1999-2005 (CSIC 2006). Also a study about research groups within the University shows that Agronomy is the only area where: (i) all groups have access to competitive funds, and (ii) there is not a single research group relying only on funding from the University’s Research Council (CSIC) (CSIC 2003).
It is interesting to note that the perception about who are the main users of research results varies depending on whose perception is. The already mentioned recent survey directed to University researchers shows that they perceive private firms as the main users of the knowledge they produce, public organizations, including government companies, coming next (see Figure 3) (Bianco et al. 2006). This sequence is different for the general public, where knowledge users for decision-making are first universities, second private firms and rather far away government (see Figure 4) (Arocena 2003). This contradictory perception between researchers and the general public clearly highlights a problem of communication, one that does not surprise at this point (mentioned above). The university is not telling who are the main users of its production to the society. Neither government seems to communicate how much it uses research results as an input for decision-making.

The University-society relationship
In the interviews, this chapter somehow referred to the previous section on the relationship with the productive sector, which is obvious part of the larger society. Many interviewees from outside of the university declined comments on this, because they did not have an opinion, or ignored specific examples to comment on.
The common response was that the most important vector in this relationship is studentship. Students constitute the main connection between society and university. Another perceived way of connection is the University’s hospital, which serves for training and also provides health care for free for the poor population. The same, though with less impact, happens with law offices in different neighborhoods of Montevideo, a classical example of an extension activity where the specialized knowledge cultivated at the University is provided to those who need it regardeless their capacity to pay for it
But there is also the perception that for a regular citizen it might be unknown what is that the university really does. A researcher mentioned: “If I would be a lady at home I do not think I would see the University as solving problems”. Another researcher, “I do not think that society visualizes that the University is improving their lives in some ways”. Again this issue shows the major problem of communication and diffusion of the University: it that is hardly seen from outside. This highlights again a former remark about the high expectations people put into the University: Should universities be directly responsible for improving people’s lifes? Should they be perceived by ladies at home as “solving-their-problems” institutions?
The Alumni is another source of connection, barely exploited by the University. They play a role in the government structure, but they could have an important function in other areas. They can be a naturally bridge with society, and with the productive sector in particular. They could point out the needs of the latter, and make suggestions in terms of curricula and orientation of the disciplines.
A common perception is that the university has to foster an open doors attitude, inviting society to go in and going out to meet it. So its doors should be opened in both ways, to and for society.

Obstacles for achieving better relationships
Some of the indicated obstacles for a better relationship have to do with issues already mentioned, such as:
Ignorance and unawareness. One feature frequently mentioned as an obstacle for a better and strongest interaction is the ignorance of the productive sector needs. There are few encounters because the university does not know what is necessary; it ignores where the demand is and what it requires. This is even worst outside Montevideo. As a consensual result, the demand goes into asking for developing radars that capture the needs of the private sector and identify areas of encounter. But also the supply within the university is unknown, not only for those who are outside, but for the inside too. An updated mapping of supply and demand seems a fundamental step in the process of closing ties.
Coordination and Interface. One fundamental issue common to many of the problems mentioned here is the lack of a coordination actor, an interface between supply and demand, between the identification of the problem and the adequate solution. Researchers are more than busy with the several tasks they have to face on a daily basis. They have to do research, teach, conduct some extension activities, write many proposals for the laboratory to survive, participate in governance structures, and do many small things related to the bureaucratic requirements of their units. Knowing the demand side and what they might need should not be taken for granted. The same argument counts the other way around.
Another requirement is the coordination between researchers working on common themes: they should join efforts and work transversally, something that occurs to a small extent.
Institutional identity. Local (school) identity predominates over the broader institutional one. There is a rather weak macro identity, a sort of an atomized dynamic constrained to the research unit or the school.

4.3.- Shared responsibilities

(a) Higher presence in the rest of the country
The academic monopoly is seen as a problem. The academic concentration in Montevideo makes it worst. . The countryside has been relegated in many respects by the national poliy, and the University has just mirrored the society at large. The attempt to expand the university to the rest of the country during the 1960s was interrupted and never again reinstalled with force. Given this perceptions, rooting the university across the country appears as part of the ‘to do’ list. But it should not be a duplication of what exist in Montevideo. On the contrary, it should take into account the productive and social specifity and offer tailored courses to the particular regional context. “The university has not been consistent. It went to Salto and left the initiative unfinished, they offer there the same as in Montevideo when it could exploit the local conditions and needs and benefit from those specificities, strengthening the connection with productive actors of the region and focusing on postgraduate courses, for instance.”

(b) Alternative tertiary studies and actors
The need to diversify the options of tertiary studies is an important theme for some of the people interviewed. There should not only be other actors in the system, even other public universities that could take advantage of the vacuum in the rest of the country and fill that gap with studies that respond to the context needs. But also other studies should be included as tertiary such as the Teaching career for Primary and Secondary School, or intermediate technical studies.

(c) Scarce budget
This is a serious bottleneck for the University’s capacity to deal with many of the problems described here. It seriously undermines the university’s outcomes. And solutions are not clear or foreseen. However, the scarce budget does not mean that there are not problems within the university of inefficiency and mismanagement. Eternal students, too many personnel, and organization are some of the issues mentioned.

(d) Vertical integration within the education system and strategic plans
The University should build alliances with the rest of the educational system, and join efforts along the chain for a better outcome. There should also exist plans that enable horizontal flowing among the university and the technical institute for instance. Strategic plans designed in agreement with the whole education system and also including the productive sector should be designed.

(e) Mentality and culture
Mentality and culture are mentioned as being at the basis of these problems. Some interviewees argue that there are contradictory visions and opposite rationale in the mind settings of the academic and business communities. A new culture should be promoted and built, one that emphasizes a mutual trust, critical thinking, focus on excellence, and that reinforces the complementarities and advantages of working together; one that highlights the relevance of collaboration, synergy, and the creation of new institutional instances including new public universities and research centers.

(f) External evaluation and quality control
This topic was only mentioned by few individuals, all of them in the orbit of the university. For them, the university should promote the existence of an external party that could evaluate its services, including the quality of the education, and its internal operation and procedures. One interviewee perceives a leveling downwards, (a sort of negative selection mechanism) across the university, and suggests that to overcome this it is important to have promotion mechanisms, quality control and better evaluation systems.

4.4.- External responsibilities

In general, the list of responsibilities external to the university is short, and the emphases are on the importance of those strategies that are internal to the University and the things that it could do to improve the situation. It is not because all challenges are in the orbit of the university, but just because of the “only target” situation already mentioned.
Some of the external responsibilities include:
(i) formalizing agreements with government and public companies to make them more agile, and accessible; (ii) creating new public universities to complement the existing one, and match the needs in the rest of the country; (iii) fostering policies and strategies that support the valuing and promotion of local technology. The latter is a shared responsibility as researchers could do their part as well. But public policies are also required, that exceed the university’s sphere.

5.- The future of the university and the university of the future

(a) Its missions
“The first mission is to train graduates who are suitable to the country’s needs.” This mission antecedes and should guide any other one, including education, research and extension. This perspective is shared by many of the interviewees. It attempts to highlight the importance of contextualizing those traditional missions, and connect them with the current and future needs, including productive, social, and economic needs. It also posits the relevance of having graduates who are required by the society so that there is not a mismatch between supply and demand. The University should think in advance what are the possible scenarios and be prepared for that, and connected to them. Research lines, disciplines and programs should take into consideration the future, and adjust to it. This approach to the university’s missions refers to a closer and higher encounter between necessities and requirements, and alternatives and responses.
The third mission could play an important role in this, connecting one to the other.

(b) The University’s third mission
In many ways the previous sections about the expectations and challenges lying ahead refer to the theme of the third mission. The case for the redefinition of the traditional mission of extension was a common feature across the interviews. Its broad developmental character seems to constitute a common ground.
The research and education missions are clear, people know how they should look like and what to expect from them. Of course there is always room for improvement but the content is more or less known. However the opposite happens with the third mission. What fits within its scope, what are its limits, how should be implemented, how should it be assessed is more uncertain. These and many more related questions remain open. It is an ongoing process, and this project is aimed at contributing to shed light on it.
Based on these interviews, some guidelines could be highlighted. Beyond the ‘classic’ approaches to extension conceived as assistance, or partnerships with firms or other organizations as extension, the third mission is redefined. This redefinition includes the previous views but with new goals. Some of these new goals involve:
• Radar tasks: there is an urgent need of knowing more and better the problems from the outside, and letting the ‘outside’ know what are the capacities inside;
• Bridging tasks: to link society and demand forces;
• Articulating tasks: found common grounds for research and teaching.

In sum the third mission has to do with radar, bridging and linking the ‘inside’ (university) with the ‘outside’, and articulating the traditional missions between them and with the third mission, whatever it may be. It has to cut these inside outside frontier in terms of communication, diffusion and awareness. Furthermore, the third mission should be included in the academic training, and curricula, and should be based on outputs, evaluation system and monitoring.

6.- Final remarks
Many of the challenges lying ahead have to do with communication problems that evidence a university that does not communicate fluently with society. They also have to do with a certain degree of isolation reinforced by loneliness that puts the University in a difficult place. Expectations about it are enormous, too grandiose for a single organization. At the same time, and in part because of that, criticisms are also intense. The idealization is too high to be fulfilled.
The other set of relevant bottlenecks have to do with connectedness, and interaction with society in general, and the productive sector in particular. There are new challenges in this sense, the future comes too soon and the university has to be prepared to preview it. A closer and stronger connection is a must and the dimensions of these linkages are plural. In all cases, the common bottom-line is that the third mission is much about connecting and bridging:
 narrowing and filling the gap between the inside and the outside,
 between teaching and researching,
 and between disciplines, connecting them through problems.

7.- References
Arocena, R. (2003). Uruguay: qué piensa la gente en el año 2003 de la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación [Uruguay: What do people think in the year 2003 about science, technology and innovation], Universidad de la República, Facultad de Ciencias, Unidad de Ciencia y Desarrollo.
Arocena, R. and J. Sutz (2001). “Changing knowledge production and Latin American Universities.” Research Policy 30: 1221-1234.
Arocena, R. and J. Sutz (2006). Uruguay: Higher Education, National System of Innovation and Economic Development in a Small Peripheral Country, UniDev Project- Universidad de la República of Uruguay.
Barreiro, A. and L. Velho (1997). “The Uruguayan Basic Scientists’ Migrations and Their Academic Articulation around the PEDECIBA.” Science, Technology & Society 2(2): 261-284.
Bentancur Diaz, J. and B. Paris de Oddone. (1995). “Historia de la Universidad [History of the University].” Retrieved November, 2006, from http://www.rau.edu.uy/universidad/uni_hist.htm.
Bianco, M., C. Bianchi, et al. (2006). Pensando el Plan Estratégico Nacional en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación: ELementos para la reflexión derivados de la Encuesta a Docentes en Régimen de Dedicación Total [Thinking the National Plan on Science, Technology and Innovation]. Montevideo, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica-CSIC.
CSIC (2003). Grupos de Investigación en la Universidad de la República [Research groups in the University of the Republic]. Montevideo, Universidad de la República - Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica.
CSIC (2006). CSIC en cifras [CSIC in figures]. Montevideo, UdelaR-CSIC.
INE (2006). Uruguay en Cifras 2006 [Uruguay in Figures 2006]. Montevideo, Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
UdelaR (2006). Estadísticas Básicas 2005 de la Universidad de la República [Basic Statistics of the University of the Republic, year 2005]. Montevideo, Dirección General de Planeamiento, Universidad de la República.

Annex 1. UniDev Project “Developing Universities - The Evolving Role of Academic Institutions in Innovation Systems and Development”

Case study of the University of the Republic-Uruguay

Questionnaire

A. Actor’s identification

i. Background

Organization’s name
Interviewee’s name
Position/Role
Since when?
Address
Phone
Date

ii. Brief description
1. What is this unit’ area of work?
2. How many people are involved?

iii. Relationship with the University
3. What is the specific linkage with the University?
4. Through what mechanisms?

B. Perception of the University
5. How would you describe the role of the University nowadays?
6. And, in the past? Has it changed/is it changing?
7. What are its main strengths?
8. And, weaknesses?
9. What do you think are the main missions of the University?
10. How do you perceive the relationship between its traditional roles of research and teaching?
10a. Nowadays in the world there is a debate about the ‘third mission’ of the universities: its relationship with the outer environment, university extension, the potential role of Universities for development.
In your opinion, what should be the main tasks of the university with this regard?

C. University-Productive Sector relationship
11. How do you perceive the relationship between university and productive sector?
12. What aspects/features do you think have worked?
12a. Why do you think it has worked in those cases?
13. And in your opinion, what are the main obstacles for a better relationship?
(Formal, informal, curricula, intellectual property, funding, rules of the
game, different incentives – NOT TO MENTION)
14. And how do you think that those obstacles could be overcame?
15. How will this situation evolve for you?
16. Through what linkages and with what actors do you think it engages with?
17. What policies, internal to the University and external, should be put in place to facilitate the linkage between university and productive sector?

D. University-society relationship
18. How would you describe the overall relationship between university and society?
19. Towards what specific mechanisms do you think they interact?
20. What are the aspects that have worked?
21. And, the ones that should be improved/corrected?
22. What should be the role of society in research? (Higher or lower involvement, mechanisms, agenda, controls, democratization, participation, etc. Not to mention)
23. With whom should it interact (actors)?
24. And what do you think is the real role right now?