For decades, universities have been evaluated primarily through two fundamental missions: education and research. Today, a third question is becoming increasingly important: What difference does a university make beyond its own walls?
This question lies at the heart of the Third Mission and the transformation towards entrepreneurial and engaged universities. However, despite growing attention to university–society cooperation, an important contradiction remains. Universities increasingly establish innovation centres, sign cooperation agreements, develop entrepreneurship programmes, and participate in community projects. Yet the existence of these activities does not necessarily mean that engagement has become part of their institutional identity. This distinction closely reflects ACEEU’s Institutional Commitment Standard, which emphasises that engagement should be a public and strategic commitment of the university and be embedded within its overall organisational strategy.
From my experience in higher education leadership, international project development, institutional cooperation, and peer review, I have become convinced that the real challenge is no longer persuading universities to engage with society; it is ensuring that engagement becomes systematic, reciprocal, and institutionally embedded.
The traditional relationship between universities, government, and business has long provided a foundation for innovation and economic development. However, complex societal challenges increasingly demand a broader approach. The Quadruple Helix model introduces civil society and citizens into this relationship, recognising that innovation must respond not only to market opportunities and public policy priorities, but also to social expectations and community needs. For universities, this represents a fundamental change in perspective as society should not simply be the recipient of academic expertise. It should become an active partner in defining problems, shaping research questions, developing solutions, and evaluating results.
This understanding has shaped my work on strengthening university–society cooperation. One example is the Erasmus+ project U-SIA – University to Society Innomediaries in Albania: Co-Production of Knowledge and Research That Matters, which I helped develop and manage at the Mediterranean University of Albania. Working with universities, businesses, public institutions, civil society organisations, and international partners, U-SIA sought to promote occasional cooperation while establishing institutional mechanisms that would make collaboration a regular function of the university.
A recurring challenge is that universities often possess considerable intellectual resources but lack the organisational mechanisms needed to connect them effectively with external needs. A researcher may have valuable expertise for a municipality. A business may need academic support to solve a technological problem. A civil society organisation may require evidence to advocate for policy change. Yet these actors frequently operate in separate institutional environments. One response to this gap was the establishment of Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Brokerage Units in partner universities, supported by a Quadruple Helix network and collaborative platform. This model reflects ACEEU’s Service Alignment Standard by connecting internal university support structures with external services and resources, thereby creating a more comprehensive support system for engagement. Examples of such mechanisms include the Second a Researcher programme for university–business cooperation, as well as Policy Labs and a Policy Challenge Fund designed to connect academic knowledge with public decision-making.
For me, the most important lesson from this experience is that successful engagement requires more than goodwill. It requires people with the right competencies, dedicated institutional structures, clear responsibilities, incentives, and mechanisms for sustaining collaboration. A university cannot expect its Third Mission to succeed if engagement depends exclusively on the enthusiasm of individual academics or temporary externally funded projects. My experience as a peer reviewer within the ACEEU accreditation framework has reinforced this perspective.
Across higher education institutions, there is often an impressive variety of initiatives: innovation laboratories, entrepreneurship centres, research partnerships, community programmes, and international networks. These achievements matter. Nevertheless, a more demanding set of questions is necessary.
How are engagement priorities determined? Who is responsible for implementing them? How are academic and administrative staff encouraged to participate? How does the university know whether its partnerships have produced meaningful results? Most importantly, what changes for students, businesses, public institutions, and communities because of these initiatives?
The distinction is fundamental. An active university implements many initiatives. An engaged university connects those initiatives to a coherent institutional mission and demonstrates their value to society. This is precisely the type of institutionalisation highlighted by ACEEU’s Institutional Commitment Standard: engagement is not an add-on, but a strategic priority connected to the university’s mission and overall direction.
Taken together, these questions reflect two interconnected elements of the ACEEU framework. The Institutional Commitment Standard asks whether engagement is genuinely embedded in the university’s strategy and priorities, while the Service Alignment Standard draws attention to whether internal support is effectively connected with relevant external expertise, services, and resources. Accreditation, therefore, should not be understood merely as external recognition. At its best, it encourages institutional reflection on how universities translate their strategies into practice.
Drawing on these experiences, I believe universities should reconsider four dimensions of their engagement strategies.
First, move from partnerships to co-creation. Universities should involve external stakeholders in identifying challenges and developing research and educational solutions, rather than inviting them only after academic priorities have already been decided.
Second, invest in the people who enable engagement. Researchers, academic leaders, project managers, technology transfer specialists, and administrative staff need the competencies, professional recognition, and organisational support to work across institutional boundaries.
Third, connect engagement directly to student learning. Students should not remain observers of university–society cooperation. They should participate in real-world challenges through internships, applied research, community projects, policy laboratories, and interdisciplinary initiatives. These experiences develop professional competencies while strengthening civic responsibility.
Fourth, measure change rather than activity. The number of memoranda signed, events organised, or partnerships established tells us relatively little about actual impact. Universities need indicators that capture how cooperation influences policies, creates employment opportunities, improves services, strengthens communities, and contributes to regional development.
The future university is a co-creator of development. This role also resonates with ACEEU’s Service Alignment Standard: universities need to connect internal support with external expertise, services, and resources to build a more coherent ecosystem for engagement. For universities in the Western Balkans, this role is especially relevant. European integration, technological transformation, demographic pressures, and regional inequalities require institutions that can connect knowledge with development priorities.
However, the lessons extend far beyond this region. Universities cannot fulfil their Third Mission simply by opening their doors to society. They must allow society to influence what happens inside those doors. The future engaged and entrepreneurial university will not be defined by how much knowledge it produces, but by how effectively it transforms knowledge into shared societal value.
And perhaps the most important question for university leaders is no longer “How many partnerships do we have?” but rather: “What would our society lose if our university stopped engaging tomorrow?”
-
The U-SIA examples are supported by the project’s official documentation, including the project overview, the 2021 project launch and Quadruple Helix rationale, and the National Agency for Scientific Research and Innovation’s project description. These document the Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Brokerage Units, Second a Researcher programme, Policy Labs, and Quadruple Helix network.
Masson-Simon @envato