The relationship between the third mission and university ranking: exploring the outreach of the top ranked universities in BRICS countries

Abstract

This study aims to understand the relationship between the third mission of the university and university ranking. In particular it explores the outreach of the top ranked universities in BRICS nations. Relevant literature review helps the research to understand the third mission of the university and how it relates to university ranking. Following the study maps out the top ranked universities in BRICS nations in four ranking systems such as QS, Times, ARWU and MosIUR. It further reviews the mission and vision (as mentioned in their websites) of the top ranked universities from BRICS nations to understand the strategies of these universities to address the third mission. The findings of the study indicate that the top ranked BRICS universities indicate clear aspiration of their third mission. They reasonably capture their third mission with relevant strategies and outreach activities in their vision and mission statements. However, there are no clear indications about measuring the third mission strategies and activities of these institutions, which needs to be studied further in detail.

Full text

The relationship between the third mission and university ranking: exploring the
outreach of the top ranked universities in BRICS countries
Solomon Arulraj David (The British University in Dubai, UAE)
Abstract: This study aims to understand the relationship between the third mission of the
university and university ranking. In particular it explores the outreach of the top ranked
universities in BRICS nations. Relevant literature review helps the research to understand the
third mission of the university and how it relates to university ranking. Following the study
maps out the top ranked universities in BRICS nations in four ranking systems such as QS,
Times, ARWU and MosIUR. It further reviews the mission and vision (as mentioned in their
websites) of the top ranked universities from BRICS nations to understand the strategies of
these universities to address the third mission. The findings of the study indicate that the top
ranked BRICS universities indicate clear aspiration of their third mission. They reasonably
capture their third mission with relevant strategies and outreach activities in their vision and
mission statements. However, there are no clear indications about measuring the third
mission strategies and activities of these institutions, which needs to be studied further in
detail.
Keywords: Third Mission, University Ranking, Higher Education, BRICS
Understanding the Third Mission of the University
Developing a clear understanding of the third mission of the university is important as there
are misconceptions about it. Most scholars address the third mission as the contribution of
education to social progress that universities not only produce new knowledge but do so with
social and economic perspectives in mind (Spiel, 2017). Brundenius & Göransson (2011)
affirm that the third mission is what universities do in order to be relevant in society? The
other two missions being teaching and research. Knowledge generation and dissemination
are the two missions of universities, the third mission is that universities extend the generated
knowledge outside academic environments for the benefit of the society. For Lenartowicz
(2015) the identity of traditional European Universities consists in the intertwinement of only
two processes, such as the introduction of continuous change in the scope of scientific
knowledge and educating new generations of scholars who will carry on this activity.
According to IGI Global (2018) the third mission refers to an additional function of the
universities in the context of knowledge society that universities must engage with societal
needs and market demands by linking the university’s activities with its own socio-economic
context. The Russel Group (2017) defines the Third Mission as activities concerned with the
generation, use, application of knowledge and other university capabilities outside academic
environments. Marhl & Pausits (2011) consider the third mission as a vehicle to let
universities leave the ivory tower and to increase the collaboration and exchange with the
society.
The third mission helps universities to strengthen the ties of universities with industry and
society, which could be relatively linked to the Triple Helix concept. The Triple Helix refers
to the triadic relationship between university, industry and government (Stanford University,
2018). The concept of Quadruple Helix refers to any fourth relevant entity such as
community, individuals, innovation, internationalisation and others (Leydesdorff, 2018).
These and other similar concepts remind us about the relevance of the third mission of the

universities. While many consider these concepts useful and helps university extends itself,
some argue that the third mission sometimes poses challenges, particularly when external
stakeholders such as industry, government, community, individual or similar entities push
their vested interest and personal agenda on universities. Zhou (2009) suggests to carefully
look into the dynamics of the collaboration and interaction of university with other
stakeholders, in particular to see who drives the collaboration and interaction and on what
cost and benefit. Rubens et al (2017) point out of the changing role and expectations of the
university, faculty and staff when external, in particular entrepreneurial activities are carried
out.
Zomer & Benneworth (2011) highlight the rise of the university’s third mission with a
question, ‘are universities drivers or recipients of change? They consider some of the societal
shifts and their implications for higher education demands strategic responses from
universities. One of the key shifts for them is competitiveness and the urgent imperative of
usefulness of universities, which is often the result of the pressure from policy-makers to
contribute to solving urgent societal problems. They indicate that policy-makers have become
increasingly aware of the economic and political value of universities in stimulating
innovation for social advancement that has pushed universities to accept broader, explicit
societal responsibilities, emerging as the third mission. Loi, & Di Guardo (2015) provide four
patterns/classification for the institutionalisation of the third mission. Need for coherence,
focused on balancing public functions and third mission activities, patent disclosure to avoid
exploitation, openness to participate in external change and to satisfy external needs and
entrepreneurial activities as a source funding. Having explored different understanding of
scholarly world on the third mission, it is necessary to conceptualise the third mission in this
study that would further develop the study. Figure 1 presents the conceptualisation of the
third mission of university.
Figure 1: The Third Mission Conceptualisation
The Russel Group (2017) report on the economic impact of Russel Group universities
indicate the direct and indirect impact of universities teaching and research. The direct impact
of the teaching is that students gets economic returns to their higher education qualifications
and in-direct impact of teaching to the society with social returns that more citizens would be
M1:
Research
M3:
Outreach
M2:
Teaching
M3.1.
Social
engagement
M3.3.
Innovation &
Sustainability
M3.2.
Enterpreneurial
activities

qualified and contribute to the overall economic growth and social advancement. The direct
impact of research is that there are research related revenues to universities and the in-direct
impact of the research supports productivity, economic growth and enhances innovations for
social advancement. Montesinos, et al (2008) indicate that the third mission ‘services to
society’ has 3 dimensions, such as; a non-profit – social approach, an entrepreneur focus, and
an innovative approximation. In other ways, the third mission includes social enterprising and
innovative dimensions. Marhl & Pausits (2011) propose the following elements to
characterise the contribution of universities in the third mission; human resources, intellectual
property, spin offs, contracts with industry, contracts with public bodies, participations into
policy making, involvement into social and cultural life and public understanding of science.
Relationship between the Third Mission and University Ranking
It is important to ask this question; does ranking include the third mission as a key criteria to
rank universities? Montesinos, et al (2008) recommends that ranking systems must consider
the third mission ‘services to society’ as a key criteria in ranking. Marhl & Pausits (2011)
provide relevant indicators to assess the quality of the third mission activities of universities.
Spiel (2017) highlight four key criteria fir third mission; expand teaching to the relevance of
society/economy, expand research to the relevance of society/economy, networking with
society/economy, future orientation and sustainability. She considers social engagement,
knowledge transfer and technology & innovation transfer as three key dimensions of third
mission of the university.
Academic and leaders of universities share strong interest on embracing the third mission of
the university. Brandt et a. (2018) accounted 23 Deans across 19 faculties on their views for
supporting this mission activities at universities, who largely supported third mission
activities and indicated that the implementations of third mission activities help improve the
visibility of the university. Koryakina, Sarrico, & Teixeira, (2015) record the perceptions on
university managers on existing barriers for third mission activities. They indicated
government regulations and funding allocation as external barrier and organisational
characteristics as internal barrier in implementing third mission activities. The result of their
study also highlighted some tensions between a growing emphasis on third mission activities
and their institutionalisation process within universities.
There are supportive and opposing views about university ranking. Some see university
ranking as a modern development, which cannot be stopped but could be enhanced to work
better. Some consider that ranking leads to unwanted practices of universities. Universities
are tempted, for example, to improve their performance specifically in the areas that are
measured by ranking agencies, resulting in tension between improving quality or ranking
position (Rauhvargers, 2013). Yet others such as Marginson (2013) believe that university
ranking is likely to keep growing and become more specialized and therefore it is preferable
to take ranking into account. The expert group on assessment of university-based research of
the European Union (EU) (2009, p.9) pointed out that ‘rankings enjoy a high level of
acceptance among stakeholders and the wider public because of their simplicity and
consumer-type information’. Therefore, ranking systems should be reviewed to value
universities more broadly, rather than for their performance in the few areas the agencies
identify. Marhl & Pausits (2011) indicate that many ranking systems have indicators to rank
the first and second mission of university, whereas, the third mission lacks any cohesive

methodology. Table 1 indicates the criteria of the four ranking systems and their link to the
third mission activities.
Table 1: Comparing what ranking measures
Criteria
Weightage
Third Mission
Activities
Quacquarelli
Symonds (QS)
Ranking
(2018)
Academic reputation
40%
Employer reputation
10%
Student to faculty ratio
20%
Social engagement
Citation per faculty
20%
International faculty ratio
5%
International student ratio
5%
The Times
Higher
Education
World
University
Ranking
(Times)
(2018)
Research: volume, income, and
reputation
30%
Citation: research influence
30%
Teaching: the learning environment
30%
International outlook: people and
research
7.5%
Industry income: innovation
2.5%
Entrepreneurial
activities &
Innovation
Academic
Ranking of
World
Universities
(ARWU)
(2018)
Quality of education (Alumni 10%,
Award 10%)
10%
Quality of faculty (staff awards and
prizes 20%, highly cited researchers
20%)
40%
Research output (papers published
in Nature and Science 20%, papers
40%

in indexed in sciences and social
sciences 20%)
Per capita performance
10%
MosIUR
(2018)
Quality of applicants, training level,
interactional competitiveness,
resource base
-
Recognition of awards, R&D
activities,
-
Education affordability, relationship
with labour market, regional links,
campus quality, communication
with society,
-
Social engagement
Entrepreneurial
activities
Sustainability
NIRF
(2018)
Teaching and learning resources
Research and professional practice
Graduation outcome
Outreach and inclusivity
Social engagement
Perception
Sustainability
Folha de S.
Paulo
(2018)
Research
Teaching
Internationalisation
Innovation
Innovation
Market value
Entrepreneurial
activities

It seems reasonably clear from the above table that some of the ranking systems, such as QS
and Times give importance to research output, indicating evaluation of some third mission
activities, while ARWU has no clear criteria to measure third mission activities. MosIUR
seem to embrace broader criteria, particularly with sufficient attention to third mission
activities. Being relatively a new system, MosIUR seems to have paid attention to the
ongoing debates on ranking. Stolz, Hendel & Horn (2010) used the Berlin Principles on
Ranking of higher education institutions that has 16 broad and comprehensive principles to
benchmark 25 higher education ranking systems in Europe. They recommend benchmarking
to improve ranking practices through existing exemplary models. Marhl & Pausits (2011)
following the Delphi method with three rounds of expert discussion, using three dimensions,
such as; continuing education, social engagement, technology transfer & innovation, arrived
at 54 indicators that are very broad. Future research may compress these 54 indicators into
manageable numbers that may lead to build clear standards to assess the third mission
activities of university. The 12 third mission activities and the 54 indicators that Marhl &
Pausits (2011) highlight could be classified under the three broad third mission activities that
the current study has developed, such as social engagement, entrepreneurial activities,
innovation and sustainability.
The question, can all universities embrace third mission widely. Some universities may
address the social engagement dimension, while others may address entrepreneurial
dimension and some others may focus on innovation and sustainability dimension or the
combination of them.
David (2017) addressed the tension for universities to respond to economic and/or social
needs in which he explored access, equity and social justice in some of the selected Indian
Universities composed of public, not-for-profit private, for-profit private higher education
institutions. He argued that public universities in India largely embrace social responsibilities
and sustainability dimensions, while for-profit institutions embrace entrepreneurial and
innovation dimensions and not-for-profit institutions attempt to pay attention to all the three
dimensions. Govinder, Makgoba (2013) developed an equity index in South African higher
education. They tried to estimate the duration it may take for South African higher education
to achieve ‘higher education for all’. They estimated that it will take around 382 years for
South African higher education to achieve zero index that reflects the demographics of South
Africa with respect to graduates and overall staff.
Cross, David & Shonubi (2014) developed a model of socially embedded university in which,
they proposed three models of universities, such as; high performing and low participating
university, low performing and high participating university and hybrid university. They
argued that universities that performing high in research, may not be teaching larger student
population, while universities that are high participating may not be performing high in
research and some universities may try to balance both. Following this argument, addressing
the question, can all universities embrace the third mission widely, may offer the following
proposition: universities that are teaching oriented may address social engagement
dimension, while universities that are research oriented may address innovation dimension
and universities that are labour market oriented may address entrepreneurial dimension.
However, universities with a specific focus or a combination of two or three focuses may
involve in one of more dimensions, although the intensity of their third mission activities may
vary. Figure 2 presents the complexity of the third mission actualisation and interaction in
universities.

Figure 2: The Third Mission Actualisation and Interaction
BRICS Universities in Ranking
BRICS: Jim O’ Neill (2011) was the first to use the term BRIC in the Goldman Sachs’
report, saying that Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) would emerge as major economies
by 2030. The foreign ministers of these nations met in New York during 2006 to discuss
BRIC cooperation. The organisation became BRICS when South Africa joined during 2011.
There have been six BRICS summits so far, the fifth at Durban in March 2013. Russia is a
member of G8 while the others are members of G20. Nearly 40% of the world’s population,
live in BRICS nations and more than 25% of the World’s land (Bremmer, 2017).
Research Profile of BRICS: Rensburg, Motala & David (2016) studied on the research
collaboration among BRICS nations, part of this work is much relevant for the discussion in
this study. The analysis of the National Innovation Systems (NIS) of BRICS countries
(RedeSist, 2010) indicates that BRICS NIS is strongly influenced by their historical
evolution, with all except China and Russia influenced by their colonial history. The study
however does not provide any clear comparisons of the NIS of BRICS countries given the
complexities. According to Research Trends (2007), among the top 20 countries by research
output, China is in 5th place, Russia in 10th place, India in 12th place, and Brazil in 18th place.
Ranked by citation China is in 13th place, Russia in 17th place, India in 19th place and Brazil
in 23rd place. In this ranking, all are located in North America and Europe except Brazil,
India, China, Japan and Korea.
According to the knowledge economy index (KEI) ranking (World Bank, 2012) Sweden is
ranked top followed by Finland and Denmark. Out of 145 countries on ranking, Russia is
ranked 55, Brazil 60, South Africa 67, China 84 and India 110. KEI’s education ranking of
Russia is 44, Brazil is 61, South Africa is 81, China is 95 and India is 111. Several studies
have confirmed that the research output of the nation is strongly linked to the GERD and
BERD of the country. Among BRICS China has got a higher GERD and BERD than the
M1:
Research
M3:
Outreach
M2:
Teaching
M3.1.
Social
engagement
M3.3.
Innovation &
Sustainability
M3.2.
Enterpreneurial
activities

others, Russia and Brazil show significant investment in research. India and South Africa
have to enhance their GERD and BERD. Table 1 provides key indications on research output
of BRICS.
Table 1: Research Profile of BRICS
Researchers in
R&D (per million
people)a
Research Output.
b
H index
c
Patent
applications,
residents. d
Brazil
710
55,803
305
4,804
China
968
392,164
385
535,313
India
137
98,081
301
9,553
Russia
3,120
39,766
325
28,701
South Africa
389
13,627
231
608
Source: a. World Bank (2010-2011), b & c SCImago (2012), d. World Bank (2012)
Amongst the BRICS, Russia has got the highest number of researchers per million, followed
by China and Brazil. India and South Africa have got the lowest, yet the average is
understandable for India given the size of its population in comparison to South Africa.
Although Russia has got the highest number of researchers per million, China’s research
output is much higher than Russia. India in comparison to Brazil and South Africa has got a
better research output although India’s number of researchers per million is the lowest. In all
the BRICS nations the H index factor seems to be similar, China with the highest and South
Africa with the lowest. In terms of patent applications China is much ahead of the others
while South Africa seems to fall behind. Table 2 explains the research output of BRICS
nations in terms of research publication, citations and H index ranking.
Table 2: SCImago Journal & Country Rank from 1996-2012
Documents
Citable
documents
Citations
Self-
citations
Citations
per
document
H index
Brazil
461,118
446,892
3,362,480
1,151,280
10.09
305

China
2,680,395
2,655,272
11,253,119
6,127.507
6.17
385
India
750,777
716,232
4,528,302
1,585,248
7.99
301
Russia
586,646
579,814
3,132,050
938,471
5.52
325
South Africa
125,303
118,747
1,170,454
260,828
11.36
231
Source: SCImago (1996-2012)
China dominates research output in terms of total number of documents, citable documents,
citations and self-citations. However, in terms of citations per document South Africa leads
among BRICS followed by Brazil and India. South Africa’s share of scientific publication
with international co-authorship increased from less than 20% during 1997 to over 55% by
2008. However, almost half of South Africa’s joint research is a result of collaboration with
Europe (SAccess, 2013). Table 3 presents the number of international collaborations.
Table 3: Number of International Collaborations
1996
2000
2005
2012
Brazil
37,238
29,061
29,988
24,558
China
18,484
16,234
14,314
15,577
India
16,922
14,997
19,121
16,278
Russia
23,283
27,177
32,162
29,530
South Africa
29,962
29,954
43,477
47,193
Source: SCImago (2012)
South Africa has the most international collaborations among BRICS followed by Russia,
Brazil, India and China. The number of international collaborations declined in Brazil from
1996 to 2012 while it steadily decreased in China until recently. The number of international
collaborations drastically increased in South Africa from 1996 to 2012 while, until recently, it
steadily increased in Russia and India maintained similar numbers during this period.

Table 4: Top Five Collaborating Partners
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Brazil
USA 11.1%
UK 3.5%
France 3.4%
Germany 3.1%
Italy 2%
China
USA 8.9%
Japan 3%
UK 2.3%
Germany 1.9%
Canada 1.7%
India
USA 6.7%
Germany 2.7%
UK 2.3%
Japan 1.9%
France 1.5%
Russia
USA 10.3%
Germany 10.1%
France 5.3%
UK 4.3%
Italy 3.4%
South
Africa
USA 15.1%
UK 11.7%
Germany 5.7%
Australia 4.5%
France 4.5%
Source: Adams, J. & King, C. (2009) Thomson Reuters
The USA is the number one collaborating partner for all the BRICS nations. European
countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Italy seem to have considerable partnerships
with BRICS. Canada and Australia are the other two countries that BRICS partners with and
Japan is the only Asian country to do so. This table indicates that none of the BRICS nations
is one of the five top partnering counties for other BRICS nations. This table very clearly
clarifies the level and state of research collaboration among BRICS.
Table 5: BRICS Research Collaboration within BRICS
Brazil
China
India
Russia
South Africa
Brazil
NA
NA
0.8%
NA
China
NA
1%
0.43%
NA
India
NA
1%
0.58%
NA
Russia
0.8%
1.5%
0.58%
NA
South Africa
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: Adams, J. & King, C. (2009) Thomson Reuters / NA – not available
This table illustrates the state of research collaboration within BRICS. Only Russia, followed
by India and China, show some indication of partnering with other BRICS counterparts in

research collaboration. South Africa and Brazil indicate no significant research collaboration
with BRICS. However this analysis is not complete as there is not enough data available. The
absence of such data could be considered also a sign of limited research collaboration within
BRICS.
BRICS and University Ranking: David & Motala (2017) explored the ranking of BRICS
universities in some of the leading ranking systems. Based on this and other studies, the
current research explored some of the top global university ranking systems and listed the
number of top universities from BRICS nations from four ranking systems such as, The
Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THEWUR), Academic Ranking of
World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and MosIUR which are listed in
table 6.
Table 6: Number of BRICS universities in some world rankings
Brazil
Russia
India
China *
South Africa
QS (2019)
Top 500
5
15
9
22 (4)
3
Times (2018)
Top 500
2
4
5
14
4
Shanghai / ARWU (2018)
Top 500
6
4
1
51
4
MosIUR (2018)
Top 174
3
13
5
10 (4)
2
Source: QS, Times, ARWU, MosIUR websites
Table 6 shows the number of universities from BRICS that are listed among the world’s top
500 universities by QS, Times and ARWU ranking systems, and lists the top 174 in MosIUR
ranking. China has the highest number of top universities among BRICS nations with 22 in
QS (of which 4 are from Hong Kong), 14 in Times, 51 in ARWU and 10 in MosIUR (of
which 4 are from Hong Kong). Although Indian higher education system is comparable to
China is size, it does not many top ranked universities as China does. India has 9 top
universities in QS, 5 in Times, 1 in ARWU and 5 in MosIUR.
The representation of top Indian universities in ARWU ranking seems little compared to the
other ranking systems. Brazil has got 5 universities among top 500 in QS, 2 in Times, 6 in
ARWU and 3 in MosIUR. Russia has 15 top universities in QS, 4 in Times, 4 in ARWU and

13 in MosIUR. And South Africa has 3 top universities in Qs, 4 in Times, 4 in ARWU and 2
in MosIUR. Table 7 provides the list of top-ranked BRICS institutions by the four ranking
systems.
Table 7: Top-ranked BRICS institutions
QS
2019
Times
2018
Shangai/ARWU
2018
MosIUR
2018
Brazil
Uni. São Paulo
251-300
Uni. SãoPaulo
118
Uni. São Paulo
151-200
Uni. São Paulo
122
China
Tsinghua Uni.
22
Tsinghua Uni.
17
Tsinghua Uni.
45
Peking Uni.
33
India
IIT-Bombay
170
IIS
251-300
IIS
401-500
AIIMS
125
Russia
LMSW
90
LMSW
199
LMSU
86
LMSU
25
South Africa
UCT 200
UCT 156
UCT 301-400
UCT 145
Source: QS, Times, ARWU, MosIUR websites
University of Sao Paulo stands top on all the four rankings in Brazil. Tsinghua University
from China is the top university in three of the four rankings, while Peking University is rated
high from China by MosIUR. Indian Institute of Science is rated as top Indian University by
two rankings, while QS rates IIT-Bombay as top university in India and MosIUR rates
AIIMS high. Moscow State University is rated top university from Russia by all the four
ranking and University of Cape Town is rated as top university from South Africa by all the
four ranking systems.
Exploring the outreach of top BRICS Universities
Having a clear foresight and vision contributes to the third mission of universities, in
particular, for carrying innovative research and extending the outcome to the benefit of the
wider society (Piirainen, Dahl Anderson & Andersen, 2016). Inman & Schuetze (2010)
recommend that the community engagement and service of mission of universities be locally

and regionally focused to benefit the local and regional communities and society. The
European indicators and ranking methodology for university third mission draft green paper
(ESNA, 2012) that the third mission has received sufficient policy attention, while
embedding it into universities third mission strategies needs serious attention.
The policies and vision on higher education of all the five BRICS countries have relatively
integrated the third mission activities. Higher Education in India Vision 2030 (FICCI, 2013)
indicates that the focus of higher education in India is to further intellectual capital and to
deliver economic and social values. India has announced the excellence funding to top 10
public and 10 private universities. Paula Renata Souza, the former Brazilian minister of
education, in her address at OECD (2018) on post-secondary education and opportunities for
investment and trade, expresses entrepreneurial interest of the sector. Taradina (2014)
highlights the Russian universities competitiveness enhancement project offered a roadmap
containing annual and overall programme target indicators that are comparable with some of
the global ranking systems. South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association
(SAUVCA, 2002) Position Paper envisages productive partnership between higher education
sector, government and civil society, highlighting the social engagement aspect. KPMG
(2010) made an overview of education in China and it indicated the growth of vocational
education contribute to the industrialisation and labour market needs of China. Table 8
indicates the third mission strategies and activities of the top ranked BRICS universities.
Table 8: Third Mission strategies and activities of Top Ranked BRICS Universities
University
Vision
Mission
Uni. São
Paulo,
Brazil
(2018)
The University of Sao Paulo
(USP) is the largest higher
education and research institution
in Brazil. It has outstanding
projection around the world,
especially in Latin America, and
develops a large number of
Brazilian masters and doctors
who work in higher education and
research institutes. It is a public
and free university, with open
access for students selected by the
'vestibular' (Brazilian entrance
exam for universities). Many of
these students, after graduation,
hold strategic and leading
functions in different segments of
public and private industries. USP
is distributed in seven campi that
comprise 42 learning and research
units, four hospitals, four
museums and six specialized
institutes. In addition it has
The University of Sao Paulo (USP) was
founded in 1934. Armando de Salles de
Oliveira, then governor of Sao Paulo,
was the responsible for the decision of
creation of the University of Sao Paulo
(USP). He signed the State Decree No
6,283, which established this institution
on January 25th, 1934. USP is a public
institution being therefore totally
authonomous in didactical, scientifical,
administrative, financial and patrimonial
affairs. The ultimate goals of USP are: (I)
to promote and develop all fields of
knowledge through teaching and
research; (II) to deliver higher education
in order to qualify professionals and
scholars to pursue research and teaching
in all fields of knowledge, as well as
qualification for professional activities;
(III) to extend services to society that are
inseparable from teaching and research.
USP, as a public university, is always
open to all currents of thought and is thus

multiple experimental
laboratories and centers of
scientific and cultural diffusion. It
encompasses all the areas of
knowledge and offers 240
undergraduate courses and 300
PhD programs.
governed by the principles of freedom of
speech, education and research.
Moscow
State
university,
Russia
(MSU,
2008)
Moscow State University's
1998 charter established
"democracy, openness and self-
government to be the main
principles in the life of Moscow
University; the main goal is
freedom to teach and to study as
well as to develop oneself as a
personality." This reflects the
long standing tradition of
Moscow State as being the most
prominent higher education
institution in Russia.
The main tasks of the University are:
a) to satisfy the demands of the person in
intellectual, cultural and moral
development by getting the
undergraduate, postgraduate degrees and
additional professional education based
on indissoluble unity of study process
and research
b) to satisfy the demands of society in
qualified specialists with higher
professional education, who combine
deep professional knowledge with high
culture and civil activity by
implementing educational programmes
of higher and additional professional
education in the field of science and
social sciences
c) conduction of fundamental and applied
scientific researches in the field of
science and social sciences in a close
connection in a close connection with
educational process, participation in
innovation activities, distribution and
propaganda of scientific knowledge
d) retraining the staff with higher
education and scientific teachers of high
qualification
e) formation among students of
University the civil position, abilities to
work, preservation and multiplication of
moral, cultural and scientific values,
spread of knowledge among population,
increase of their educational level
Indian
Institute of
Science,
IISc aims to be among the
world’s foremost academic
institutions through the pursuit of
Imparting world-class higher education
in an environment of fundamental and
applied research in science and

India
(2018)
excellence in research and
promotion of innovation by
offering world-class education to
train future leaders in science and
technology and by applying
science and technology
breakthroughs for India’s wealth
creation and social welfare.
engineering
Conducting high-impact research,
generating new knowledge, and
disseminating this knowledge through
publications in top journals and
conferences
Applying faculty expertise towards the
success of national science and
technology initiatives
Applying deep knowledge in various
areas to create knowhow and developing
such knowhow for utilization by industry
and society
Tsinghua
University,
China
(2018)
In 1914, the third year after the
establishment of Tsinghua
School, the predecessor of
Tsinghua University, teacher
Qichao Liang quoted two
sentences from China’s ancient
philosophy book, The Book of
Changes, to encourage students to
study diligently and behave
kindly. Later, Tsinghua
University summarized the motto
accordingly as “Self-discipline
and Social Commitment”.
Tsinghua University also holds
the academic spirit of "Rigor,
Diligence, Veracity, and
Creativity", the spirit of
“Patriotism, Devotion and
Pursuing Excellence”, and the
tradition of “Actions Speak
Louder than Words.”
Years after the start of Department of
Electrical Engineering, Professor
Mingtao Zhang, the then Head of the
Department of Electrical Engineering,
spoke to students in one meeting as
follows: “You are here at the Department
of Electrical Engineering of Tsinghua
University both for scholarliness and
integrity, while the later one is more
crucial for young peoples.” In 1992, the
then China’s Premier Rongji Zhu, who
graduated from the Department of
Electrical Engineering in 1951, again
mentioned these words at the 60th
anniversary of the foundation of the
Department of Electrical Engineering and
elaborated it as “Conscientious
academics and honest behavior” , which
commendably echoed the motto of
Tsinghua University. Then it was
regarded as the motto of the Department
of Electrical Engineering.
University
of Cape
Town,
South
Africa
(2018)
UCT is an inclusive and engaged
research-intensive African
university that inspires creativity
through outstanding achievements
in learning, discovery and
citizenship; enhancing the lives of
its students and staff; advancing a
more equitable and sustainable
social order and influencing the
global higher education
landscape.
UCT is committed to engaging with the
key issues of our natural and social
worlds through outstanding teaching,
research and scholarship. We seek to
advance the status and distinctiveness of
scholarship in Africa through building
strategic partnerships across the
continent, the global south and the rest of
the world.
UCT provides a vibrant and supportive

intellectual environment that attracts and
connects people from all over the world.
We aim to produce graduates and future
leaders who are influential locally and
globally. Our qualifications are locally
applicable and internationally acclaimed,
underpinned by values of engaged
citizenship and social justice. Our
scholarship and research have a positive
impact on our society and our
environment.
We will actively advance the pace of
transformation within our university and
beyond, nurturing an
inclusive institutional culture which
embraces diversity.
It is necessary to analyse the vision and mission statements of these five higher education
institutions in line with the three third mission dimensions that the current study has
identified in order to understand the third mission focus of these institutions. It is important to
acknowledge that this is not sufficient to understand the third mission activities of these
institutions, for which, the study must be extended to beyond reviewing the vision and
mission statements which future studies may focus. Table 9 analyses the third mission
dimensions among BRICS top universities vision and mission statements.
Table 9: The third mission dimensions in BRICS top Universities’ vision and Mission
Third mission /
University
Social engagement
Entrepreneurial
activities
Innovation and
sustainability
Uni. São Paulo,
Brazil
(2018)
Strongly embedded
Rarely embedded
Moderately
embedded
Moscow State
university, Russia
(MSU, 2008)
Strongly embedded
Rarely embedded
Moderately
embedded
Indian Institute of
Science, India
(2018)
Moderately
embedded
Rarely embedded
Strongly embedded
Tsinghua University,
Moderately
Rarely embedded
Strongly embedded

China (2018)
embedded
University of Cape
Town, South Africa
(2018)
Moderately
embedded
Rarely embedded
Strongly embedded
The analysis is made on to what extend the third mission dimensions are captured and are
embedded in the vision and mission statements of the five selected BRICS universities. In the
vision and mission statements of the institutions from India, China and South Africa, the
innovation and sustainability dimension is strongly embedded while in the institutions from
Brazil and Russia social engagement is strongly embedded, the social dynamics in the history
of these countries might have influenced this. Entrepreneurial activities is rarely embedded in
all the five institutions from the five countries, partly for the reason that they are all public
institutions.
Concluding note
This study aims to understand the relationship between the third mission of the university and
university ranking. In particular it explores the outreach of the top ranked universities in
BRICS nations. Relevant literature review helps the research to understand the third mission
of the university and how it relates to university ranking. Following the study maps out the
top ranked universities in BRICS nations in four ranking systems such as QS, Times, ARWU
and MosIUR. It further reviews the mission and vision (as mentioned in their websites) of the
top ranked universities from BRICS nations to understand the strategies of these universities
to address the third mission. The findings of the study indicate that the top ranked BRICS
universities indicate clear aspiration of their third mission. They reasonably capture their
third mission with relevant strategies and outreach activities in their vision and mission
statements. However, there are no clear indications about measuring the third mission
strategies and activities of these institutions, which needs to be studied further in detail.
References
Adams, J. & King, C. (2009). Global Research Report Brazil. Leeds-UK: Thomson Reuters.
Brandt, L. et al (2018). Supporting third mission activities at Universities: Dean’s opinions
and recommendations. Scientific Contribution, 13(2), 21-40.
Bremmer, I. (2017). The Mixed fortunes of the BRICS Countries in 5 Facts. Retrieved on
November 26, 2018, from http://time.com/4923837/brics-summit-xiamen-mixed-
fortunes/
Brundenius C., Göransson B. (2011). The Three Missions of Universities: A Synthesis of
UniDev Project Findings. In: Göransson B., Brundenius C. (eds ) Universities in
Transition. Insight and Innovation in International Development. Springer: New
York. Pp.329-352.
Cross, M., David, S.A., & Shonubi, O. (2014). The Sociology Embedded University:
embracing access, equity and social justice in higher education. Toronto: CIES
Conference.

David, S. A. (2016). Social Responsiveness of Higher Education in India: Embracing or
Embarrassing Access, Equity and Social Justice. Rupkatha Journal on
Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. 8(4), 181-193.
David S A & Motala S (2017). Can BRICS Build Ivory Towers of Excellence? Giving New
Meaning to the World Class Universities. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 12(4), 512-528.
ESNA (2012). Fostering and Measuring ‘Third Mission’ in Higher Education. Retrieved on
November 27, 2018, from http://www.esna.tv/files/div/GreenPaper_ThirdMission.pdf
FICCI (2013). Higher Education in India: Vision 2030. Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce & Industry Higher Education Summit 2013. Retrieved on November 26,
2018, from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Higher-education-in-India-
Vision-2030/$FILE/EY-Higher-education-in-India-Vision-2030.pdf
Folha de S. Paulo (2018). Ranking de Universidades (University Ranking in Brazil).
Retrieved on November 27, 2018, from https://ruf.folha.uol.com.br/2018/ranking-de-
universidades/
Govinder K., Makgoba, M. W. South African universities equity index. (2013). Report of the
Ministerial Oversight Committee on transformation in South African universities and
key sector stakeholders, 29 August 2013. Pretoria: Department of Education.
IGI Global (2018). What is University’s Third-Mission? Retrieved November 23, 2018, from
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/universitys-third-mission/51708
Inman, P., & Schuetze, H.G. (2010). The Community Engagement and Service Mission of
Universities. Leicester: NIACE Publications.
IIS (2018). Vision and Mission of Indian Institute of Science. Retrieved on November 26,
2018, from https://www.iisc.ac.in/vision-and-mission/
KPMG (2010). Education in China. Retrieved on November 27, 2018, from
https://www.kpmg.de/docs/Education-in-China-201011.pdf
Koryakina, T., Sarrico, C.S., & Teixeira, P.N. (2015). Third mission activities: university
managers’ perceptions on exisiting barriers. European Journal of Higher Education,
5(3), 316-330.
Lenartowicz, M. (2015). The nature of the university. Higher Education, 69;947-961.
Leydesdorff, L. (2018). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-tuple of Helices:
Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-based Economy? Retrieved
November 25, 2018, from https://www.leydesdorff.net/ntuple/
Loi, M., & Di Guardo, M.C. (2015). The third mission of universities: An investigation of the
espoused values. Science and Public Policy, 42; 855-870.
Marhl, M., & Pausits, A. (2011). Third Mission Indicators for New Ranking Methodologies.
Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 43-64.

Montesinos, P., et al (2008). Third Mission Ranking for World Class Universities: Beyond
Teaching and Research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 259-271.
MUS (2008). Charter of Moscow State University. Retrieved on November 26, 2018, from
https://www.msu.ru/upload/pdf/docs/ustav.pdf
New World Encyclopedia (2018). Moscow State University. Retrieved on November 26,
2018, from
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Moscow_State_University#Mission_and
_Reputation
NIRF (2018). India Ranking 2018. National Institutional Ranking Framework. Retrieved on
November 27, 2018, from https://www.nirfindia.org/2018/pdf/nirf_2018_final.pdf
OECD (2018).Post-secondary education and opportunities for investment and trade.
Retrieved on November 26, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-
school/2753163.pdf
O’Neill, J. (2011). BRICs should be seen as an opportunity not a threat. Accessed on 27-06-
2014 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/8904931/Jim-ONeill-
BRICs-should-be-seen-as-an-opportunity-not-a-threat.html
Piiraine, K.A., Dahl Anderson, A., & Andersen, P.D. (2016). Foresight and the third mission
of universities: the case for innovation system foresight. Foresight, 18(1), 24-40.
RedeSist (2010). Final Technical Report. Research Project National Innovation Systems of
BRICS Countries. Rio de Janeiro: RedeSist Economics Institute.
Rensburg, I., Motala, S. & David, S. A (2016). Research Collaboration among Emerging
Economies: Policy and Economic Implications for BRICS Nations. International
Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 9(4), 344-360.
Research Trends (2014). Geographical Trends of Research Output. Accessed on 14-05-2014
at http://www.researchtrends.com/issue8-november-2008/geographical-trends-of-
research-output/
Round Ranking (2018). Vision and Mission of University of Sao Paulo. Retrieved on
November 26, 2018, from http://roundranking.com/universities/university-of-sao-
paulo.html?sort=O&year=2018&subject=SO
Rubans, A. et al (2017). Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the
challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(3), 354-372.
Russell Group (2017). The economic impact of Russel Group Universities. Retrieved,
November 25, 2018, from https://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5608/the-economic-
impact-of-russell-group-universities.pdf
SAccess (2013). Report on South African Research and Innovation Capacity. European
Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7 (2007-2013). Brussels: European
Union.

SAUVCA, (2002). South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association Position Paper.
Retrieved on November 26, 2018, from
https://www.saide.org.za/resources/Library/SAUVCA%20-
%20A%20Vision%20for%20South%20African%20Higher%20Education_Nov%200
2%20-%20Final.pdf
SCImago (2012). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Accessed on 21-05-2014 at
http://www.scimagojr.com
Spiel, C. (2017). How education can promote social progress. Retrieved on November 26,
2018, from http://iauptriennial2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ys-1-keynote-
spiel-christiane.pdf
Stanford University (2018). The Triple Helix Concept. Retrieved, November 25, 2018, from
https://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept
Stolz, I., Hendel, D.D., & Horn, A.S. (2010). Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-
five higher education ranking systems in Europe. Higher Education, 60:507-528.
Taradina, L. (2014). The Russian Universities Competitiveness Enhancement Project:
Evaluating Potential Impact of University Strategy. Retrieved on November, 26,
2018, on https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/05/16/1321296879/HERB_01_Spring.pdf
Tsinghua University (2018). Vision and Mission of Tsinghua University. Retrieved on
November 26, 2018, from
https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/eeaen/1191/index.html
UCT (2018). Vision and Mission of University of Cape Town. Retrieved on November 26,
2018, from http://www.uct.ac.za/main/about/mission
World Bank (2012). Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 2012 Rankings. Accessed on 26-06-
2014 at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUNIKAM/Resources/2012.pdf
Zhou, C. (2008). Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix.
The case of Northeastern University in China. Journal of Technology Management,
3(1), 109-126.
Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The Rise of the University’s Third Mission. In Enders,
J., et al (2011) Eds., Reform of Higher Education in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers. Pp.81-101.
Solomon A. DAVID has ten years of university teaching experience including his teaching
experiences at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, SRM University, Chennai, India,
and University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
He also has special interest in comparative international education, higher education,
sociology of education, curriculum studies and educational policy. He obtained his B.A., (St.
John’s College) B.Ed., (St. Xavier’s College of Education) and M.A., from Manonmaniam
Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, India and got his M.Ed., and PhD from Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. He has been a post-doctoral research and teaching fellow at

University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He also has done various short term courses and
trainings including the one from APCIEU - South Korea and UNED - Spain. He received
IRO-KUL doctoral fellowship for his doctoral research, post-doctoral research fellowship
award from University of Johannesburg, South Africa and various other awards including
Sharing Knowledge Project award – VLIR UOS.
He has guest lectured at various other institutions in Belgium, India and South Africa. He has
been an intern at UNESCO, Paris, France, a trainee at DG Education and Culture, European
Commission, Brussels, Belgium and has been a consultant to various organizations such as
CFCA, Missio, SuAzio, Diligent, Studio Globo and few others.
He has published three books and over 15 articles in reputed journals. He actively conducts
independent and joint research focusing to publish at accredited journals. He is a member in
the editorial board on 'Journal of Dialogues in Education', and a reviewer in the journal
'Education as Change', ‘Studies in Higher Education’ and in few others. Currently he is
interested to conduct research in the following areas; comparative international higher
education, higher education governance, university leadership, sociology of knowledge,
curriculum studies, intercultural education and education for international understanding.