J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

DOI 10.1007/s13132-015-0343-7

Vision and Mission Statements in Italian Universities:

Results of an Empirical Investigation on Strategic
Orientation

Katia Giusepponi 1 & Ernesto Tavoletti 2

Received: 20 July 2015 / Accepted: 30 November 2015 /

Published online: 21 December 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract This paper explores the strategic orientation of Italian universities with a
special focus on their vision and mission statements. It has been possible to collect data
for 89 universities, by means of a survey sent by e-mail to all 95 Italian universities and
by visiting all their websites. Based on the international literature, a number of variables
have been identified for the analysis: main missions (education, research and third
mission), internationalization, role of the host territory, competitive and cooperative
categories. The data collected through the survey (23 answers) allowed a further
investigation into their views regarding strengths and weaknesses of the Italian higher
education system, their strategic planning process, the role of internal actors and
external stakeholders. Results are mixed and show that one sub-group of Italian
universities is very pro-active and innovative in its strategic planning; another sub-
group interprets strategic planning as nothing more than a legal compliance.

Keywords Higher education management . Higher education governance . Strategic

planning . Public management . Vision . Mission

Introduction

The issue of Italian universities’ strategic planning is deeply linked to the reform of
their governance. In the Anglo-Saxon world, universities have benefited from a large
degree of autonomy since their foundation (Neave 2002), while in continental Europe,

* Ernesto Tavoletti
ernesto.tavoletti@unimc.it
Katia Giusepponi
katia.giusepponi@unimc.it

1
University of Macerata, P.Le Luigi Bertelli, 1—C.Da Vallebona, 62100 Macerata, Italy
2
University of Macerata, P.zza Strambi, n. 1, 62100 Macerata, Italy
302 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

since the foundation of national states, they have been part of public administration or
under the direct control of national states (Neave et al. 2000) and autonomy is a
relatively recent phenomenon (Neave and Vught 1991).
In 1989, a legal frame of autonomy was provided for the first time after the foundation
of the Italian state. Five long years of substantial non-application followed, because of
consolidated organizational culture reluctant both to grant and occupy spaces of autonomy
(Capano 1998). The first conditions for the application of autonomous strategic planning
of universities were set by the Finance Act of 1994, that introduced some elements of that
governance strategy of the national systems of higher education known in the literature as
‘steering at a distance’ (Gornitzka and Maassen 2000). In particular, the Finance Act of
1994 introduced the so-called lump sum budget (the ability to autonomously allocate
resources received from the central state), based on historical records but with the aim of
linking it to performance, degree of autonomy in setting student fees, the Observatory for
the Evaluation of the University System. It was a form of ‘enforced autonomy’ (Vaira
2011) in the frame of that reform process known as ‘new public management’ (Ashburner
et al. 1996; Hood 1995), that has affected European higher education systems since the
1980s (Huisman 2009; Paradeise et al. 2009; Van Vught 1989).
The autonomy introduced in Italy in 1994 had a very gradual implementation as ‘a
formal grant of autonomy does not guarantee active self determination; autonomous
universities may be passive institutions’ (Clark 1998: 5). Moreover in the Italian case,
the granting of autonomy has been more proclaimed than effective and where real
degrees of autonomy have been granted, during the 1990s and the early years of the last
decade, this has not been accompanied by accountability on ex post results but to more
stringent regulatory requirements and to ex ante administrative controls, where the only
responsibility is about strict legal compliance. The absence of responsibility going
beyond strict legal compliance has often led universities to make inefficient and
ineffective choices, useful only to justify the paradoxical need for additional formal
legal controls: ‘rather than improving and creating more efficiency, hyper-reformism
tends to destabilize the system [..] brought forward with a top down approach,
increasing regulations and consequently eroding the autonomy of universities [..]’
(Vaira 2011: 197).
It is in this context that in 2009, we get to the obligation of a formalized strategic
planning for public administrations, including universities. In the Italian context, in
fact, most universities are part of the public administration and their strategic planning
is governed by the general rules that govern the strategic planning of public adminis-
tration. The reform is on ‘optimization of labour productivity and public efficiency and
transparency of public administration’, which, as the name itself suggests, stems from
demands for productivity, efficiency and ‘accountability’ of public administrations,
rather than from a concern for autonomy and effectiveness that the concept of the
strategic plan would suggest. These regulations, while maintaining the typical termi-
nology of ‘new public management’, are motivated by the objective of re-centralizing
the higher education system, on the assumption that autonomy (basically never granted)
was not properly managed. It is a national legal framework which contrasts with the
very idea of strategic planning and self-definition of vision and mission of universities.
An idea that is, however, forced by the growing needs of universities to legitimize their
choices with stakeholders (Maassen 2000), by increased national and international
competition (Marginson 2006; Rossi 2009), in an environment still characterized by
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 303

a spirit of cooperation (Grupe 1983), and a rapidly changing social context (Mukerjee
2014). The very existence of a resolution that governs the structure of the document and
describes the name of paragraphs in detail gives the strange idea of an institution that
should be the master of its strategy but not of naming paragraphs and the form of the
document (denominated ‘performance plan’) on which the strategy is transcribed. That
is particularly paradoxical for autonomous public administrations such as universities.
For the stated reasons, strategic planning is a recent phenomenon in higher educa-
tion, largely induced by regulatory obligations. An investigation into the effects
produced by the decree on strategic planning of Italian universities is missing. It is
unknown how many and which Italian universities are equipped with strategic plans, or
which ones have made them available online. If the strategic plan is made available
online, it lacks an investigation on the contents of the same. Our objective is to fill this
gap by placing special attention on the vision and mission statements contained in
strategic plans. It is not to analyse strategic planning in action or to investigate the
differences between the intended and realized strategies (Mintzberg 1978) as the
investigation is limited to the intended ones, as reported in strategic plans and decla-
rations. The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a critical review of
the relevant literature. The third section illustrates the methodology. The fourth section
reports the results of the analysis. The fifth section discusses the results. The sixth
section identifies conclusions and prospects for future research.

Theoretical Background

Although mission statements are widely used management tools, there is little empirical
evidence in the literature about their effectiveness in producing higher performance
(Sidhu 2003; Desmidt and Prinzie 2008; Bartkus et al. 2006). What is empirically
supported is their effectiveness as communication tools, useful both for spreading their
contents and to achieve a shared understanding about their meaning (Desmidt and
Prinzie 2009). Although most of the literature focuses on the ‘mission’, some authors
highlight the value of the ‘mission statements’ also to express a ‘vision’ for the future of
the organization (Carruthers and Lott 1981; Martin 1985).
The statements of vision and mission of the universities emerged earlier in the
English-speaking world (Chait 1979; McKelvie 1986), where nation states have tradi-
tionally ensured ample autonomy to universities (Neave 2002), allowing them to
formulate strategic plans that in some cases have been innovative and based on local
requirements (Clark 1998). Instead, the concept of ‘institutional mandate of the uni-
versity’ is understood as being antecedent to and separate from any consideration of
strategic planning (Ortega y Gassett 1944).
The mission of the university has evolved over time and in different national
contexts: Medieval universities emphasized teaching, the first modern universities
emphasized service to the national state, German universities were the first ones to
put research at the forefront, while globalization stands at the centre the new mission of
internationalization (Scott 2006).
Today, teaching and research stand out as the two main missions of universities and
the so-called third mission, as the transfer of knowledge to society and not just students,
and in such forms as to contribute to social and economic progress (Montesinos et al.
304 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

2008), is the most recent one and the one that most needs innovation in the organization
of universities (Laredo 2007). The ‘third mission’ has involved a re-thinking of the
production of knowledge in universities, from an internally driven and discipline-based
mode 1 to a socially distributed, application-oriented, transdisciplinary and subject to
multiple accountabilities mode 2 (Gibbons 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001).
The review of the most recent literature about mission statements of universities
shows that they have been linked to both organizational performance and successful
implementation of strategies (Camelia and Marius 2013). There is evidence that they
are not very effective in producing superior performance (Morphew and Hartley 2006),
and very often, their content may be generic (Finley et al. 2001) or rhetorical:
‘amazingly vague, vapid, evasive, or rhetorical, lacking specificity or clear purpose
… full of honorable verbiage signifying nothing’ (Newsom and Hayes 1991, p. 29).
Most of the authors, however, argue that they continue to provide universities with a
useful guideline for the achievement of their goals (Camelia and Marius 2013;
Campbell 2008; Velcoff and Ferrari 2006; Woodrow 2006; Hartley 2002; Bingham
et al. 2001).
Özdem (2011) conducted an investigation of mission and vision statements of all
public universities in Turkey and found a substantial isomorphism, in the sense that
universities with different histories and size use very similar statements, without
emphasizing their specificities: ‘It is worthy of note that universities founded in
different regions and under different conditions all have similar mission and vision
statements’ (Özdem 2011: 1892). This ‘generalist’ trend is not specific to Turkey and
has been reported also for the North American context (Davies 1986). A similar
research has been conducted for Wales but with reference to the congruence between
the mission statements of universities and regional policy objectives on one side and
market demands on the other; the conclusion that emerges is of a relatively substantial
convergence in ‘excellence, research and a commitment to Wales and its economy’
(James and Huisman 2009) but contrary to what was found for Turkey from Özdem
(2011) ‘missions are very diverse, with no two institutions stressing the same set of
mission elements’. Kuenssberg (2011) confirms an isomorphism trend for Scotland and
reports an overall impression of similarity rather than differentiation in mission state-
ments, but what emerges most significantly is an almost surprising absence of refer-
ences to students and student centrality (Vincow 1997) and the centrality of the concept
of competitiveness: ‘the striking emphasis on competitiveness at national and global
level and the surprising lack of focus on some key areas, particularly the student
experience’ (Kuenssberg 2011: 279).
According to some studies in the university system, autonomy does not lead to the
differentiation of missions because market mechanisms work imperfectly and the
‘competition for reputation’ leads to an isomorphism of mission statements that tend
to imitate the statements of organizations with greater reputation (Van Vught 2008).
The phenomenon of progressive emulation of the mission statements of the best
‘research-intensive universities’ is also referred to as ‘mission creep’, but in the case
of some US states, the phenomenon does not appear dominant over the attempt to
define a distinctive profile (de Jager 2011).
In the case of British universities and business schools (Davies and Glaister 1997), it
has been found that mission statements are perceived ‘in terms of meeting the require-
ments of an external stakeholder rather than offering the opportunity to develop a real
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 305

sense of purpose within the organization’ (Davies and Glaister 1996). On the same line
of thinking as the British case are Connell and Galasinski (1998). In the case of German
universities’ mission statements, rather than defining distinct organizational identities
and describe the objectives and missions assigned by law to universities, they may add
distinctive images related to history, geography or specialization, in order to build a
symbolic outline and define the competitive arena of each university (Kosmützky
2012). It has also been noted that mission statements, just like the university’s physical
spaces, incorporate structure and organizational culture; through the strengthening of
the mission-space linkage, strategy can affect structure and culture to increase effec-
tiveness (Fugazzotto 2009).

Methodology

Information used to carry out a study of the characteristics of strategic orientation in

Italian universities was obtained with the following methods: (1) a specifically designed
questionnaire and (2) the study of vision and mission statements available on university
websites.
Answers to the questionnaire (shown in Appendix 1) were used to study opinions on
context and profiles within the process of policy formulation, as well as the content of
vision and mission statements. The questionnaire was made available online using
LimeSurvey. All Italian institutions of higher education, 95 in total, were invited to take
part in the survey.
Initially, an invitation addressed to the Rector of each institution was e-mailed on 21
February 2014. This was followed by a phone call to confirm that the questionnaire had
been received and to further clarify its objectives. When requested, the invitation was
forwarded to additional addresses via e-mail, and, in some cases, the questionnaire was
sent in a file for an initial offline evaluation. On 25 March 2014, the invitation to the
Rectors was renewed, and a last reminder was sent on 9 April 2014. Twenty-three
institutions answered the questionnaire, that is to say 24 % of the total.
The survey did not focus exclusively on the respondents but also on Italian
universities as a whole and was carried out by studying vision and mission statements
made available online by these institutions, as well as the answers given to the
questionnaire (when available). These include strategic plans, 3-year programmes,
performance plans, statutes, rector mandates and other online content which is included
in strategic policies.
The study of data obtained from the survey followed the path set out in the
questionnaire: (1) context-based opinions (current role of the university, main weak
areas in the Italian university system, main strengths of the system), (2) vision and
mission statements (clarification and diffusion) and (3) policy formulation (internal
involvement, external involvement, a summary of perspectives).
The analysis was carried out in four stages. The two authors:

Step 1 chose which strategic guidelines to study and the main variables for carrying
out the analysis based on existing literature;
Step 2 analysed individual cases and prepared an independent initial classification by
using the variables selected;
306 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Step 3 performed an in-depth analysis of the results and agreed on a common

approach;
Step 4 sent a draft of the survey to the universities that participated in the question-
naire and took into consideration any comments in the context of the final
analysis.

The results of the analysis as summarized below were finally jointly discussed.

Analysis

The following categories, well established in the reviewed literature, were found to be
the most characteristic and recurrent in the vision and mission statements of Italian
universities: (1) reference or centrality of teaching and students (Kuenssberg 2011;
Vincow 1997), (2) reference or centrality of research and professional knowledge
(Gibbons 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001), (3) reference or centrality of relations with
economic actors and third mission (Montesinos et al. 2008; Laredo 2007), (4) reference
or centrality of internationalization (Scott 2006), (5) reference or centrality of relations
with the territory (Clark 1998; Tavoletti 2009), (6) reference to categories related to
competition (Marginson 2006; Rossi 2009) and (7) reference to categories related to
cooperation (Grupe 1983).
The vision and mission statements collected on university websites or through the
survey have been analysed by means of the above-listed variables, according to the
four-step method of analysis described in the previous section. Results are summarized
in Tables 1 and 2.
The distinction between vision statements and mission statements does not always
look clear in university strategic plans or at least is not always in line with the meaning
commonly attributed to the two concepts in management science. In many cases, the
two concepts are used as synonyms and partially overlap. For this reason, vision and
mission statements have been analysed jointly.
Overall, universities have vision and mission statements that differ enormously.
They range from showing strong competitive accents to extensive cooperation, from
ambitions of excellence to strong financial concerns, from pronounced international
aspirations to service vocations to the territory, from a strong focus on the development
of critical knowledge to a strong focus on the development of vocational knowledge,
from student-centred statements to research-centred ones and from very managerial
visions, with strong references to employability, to critical thinking-oriented ones.
However, common elements are also numerous.
Vision and mission statements, with just a few exceptions, express three main
functions: (1) teaching or the transmission of knowledge, (2) research or the creation
of new knowledge and (3) the so-called third mission or service to the community
(Montesinos et al. 2008).
Teaching and the transmission of knowledge is the oldest function of universities,
and two opposite extremes are possible: (a) total emphasis on the transmission of
knowledge to future generations, with weak or absent references to the student, unless
as a means for the transmission of knowledge and (b) total emphasis on the student and
his critical or professional education, with the transmission of knowledge intended as
Table 1 Principle perspectives for strategic planning in universities: education/student, research/development of knowledge, relations with economic actors, internationalization and
relations with local/territorial dimensions

Components of References to education/ References to research/ References to relations Internationalization References to local/
strategic planning student development of knowledge with economic actors territorial dimensions
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

(taken from (and third mission)

university
vision and mission CE PR AS NA CE PR AS NA CE PR AS NA CE PR AS NA CE PR AS NA
statements)

Absolute frequency 10 78 1 6 10 76 3 6 2 64 23 6 12 60 17 6 8 56 25 6
Including references 10 41
to the student
Including references 5 39
to professional
knowledge
Percentage % of 10.53 % 82.11 % 1.05 % 6.32 % 10.53 % 80.00 % 3.16 % 6.32 % 2.11 % 67.37 % 24.21 % 6.32 % 12.63 % 63.16 % 17.89 % 6.32 % 8.42 % 58.95 % 26.32 % 6.32 %
total (95)
Percentage % of 11.24 % 87.64 % 1.12 % 11.24 % 85.39 % 3.37 % 2.25 % 71.91 % 25.84 % 13.48 % 67.42 % 19.10 % 8.99 % 62.92 % 28.09 %
available
evidence (89)

CE central/prevalent, PR existing but not central, AS absent, NA not available/missing cases (on the website of six universities, there were no elements relative to their the strategic
orientation)
307
308 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Table 2 Principle perspectives of strategic direction in universities: categories linked to competition and
collaboration

Elements of strategic direction Categories linked to Categories linked to

(taken from vision and mission competition collaboration
statements)
Yes No NA Yes No NA

Absolute frequency 31 58 6 50 39 6
Percentage % of total (95) 32.63 % 61.05 % 6.32 % 52.63 % 41.05 % 6.32 %
Percentage % of available evidence (89) 34.83 % 65.17 % 56.18 % 43.82 %

NA not available/missing cases

education and not as a purpose in itself. The distinction can be summarized in terms of
(a) ‘not student-centred’ or (b) ‘student-centred’ (Vincow 1997). The (b) ‘student-
centred’ statements can be classified depending on the emphasis on (b1) ‘critical
education of the student’ or (b2) ‘professional education of the student’. At a higher
level of abstraction, (a) and (b2) could be traced back to the distinction between the
concept of ‘student as a means’—for the transfer of knowledge to future generations (a)
or as a human resource for the labour market (b2)—and ‘student as an end’ through the
education of the individual and his critical skills (b1).
The second function of the university, research or the creation of new knowl-
edge, can be classified depending on the emphasis on professional or applied
knowledge (Nowotny et al. 2001). The third function of the university, the so-
called third mission or service to the community, can be characterized depending
on the kind of community: local, regional, national or international.
The other most distinctive elements that are often present in vision and mission
statements are internationalization (Scott 2006), territory (Clark 1998; Tavoletti
2009) and categories related to competition (Marginson 2006; Rossi 2009) or
cooperation (Grupe 1983), with internationalization and territory being the most
frequent ones.
The analysis of vision and/or mission statements of 89 universities (for 6 of the
95 universities, it was not possible to find either an explicit statement of vision and/
or mission nor any information about the actual vision and/or mission) reveals an
idea of university engaged in a balanced way on three main functions: (1) teaching
or the transmission of knowledge, (2) research or the creation of new knowledge
and (3) the so-called third mission or service to the community.
Cases of specialization on research alone or only on teaching are marginal,
but as many as 23 cases do not show references to third mission or relation-
ships with external economic subjects (Table 1). With reference to the three
main functions of universities and based on mission and vision statements, it is
possible to identify the following types of universities: (1) lack of any reference
to teaching and students, focusing solely on scientific research, the transmission
of knowledge or promotion of culture, 1 case; (2) lack of any reference to
research, focusing solely on teaching, 3 cases (for two of them, there is also no
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 309

reference to the third mission); (3) lack of any reference to the third mission,
23 cases; (4) reference to all three main functions with emphasis on the
transmission of critical knowledge, 30 cases; (5) reference to all three main
functions with emphasis on the transmission of professional knowledge, 31
cases; and (6) reference to all three main functions with an emphasis on student
education and critical knowledge, 11 cases. We denominate the six typologies
as follows: (1) research-only university, (2) teaching university, (3) unengaged
university, (4) engaged university, (5) new engaged university and (6) student-
centred university.
Among the 86 universities that contain references to research and knowledge
creation, 44 contain references to professional knowledge and 42 express a concept
of critical knowledge (Table 1). The explicit reference to the student in the statements
on education is present in 51 cases out of 88. So, the group of universities that includes
all three main functions in the vision and mission statements is by far the most
numerous, as is the reference to the student and his central role. The reference to a
concept of professional knowledge is not very prevalent but balanced with respect to
the concept of critical knowledge.
The reference to internationalization is present in 72 cases out of 89, and in 12
of these plays a central role. The local and territorial dimension is present in 64
cases out of 89 and in 8 of these plays a central role (Table 1). The reference to
categories related to competition is present in 31 cases out of 89, equal to 33 %.
The reference to categories related to cooperation is present in 50 cases out of 89,
equal to 53 % (Table 2).
The most common profile that emerges is of a university that is aware of an
increasingly competitive and internationalized environment, to compete in which
it is necessary to leverage both on the local territory and extended cooperation
networks, in order to impart critical skills and/or professional knowledge to
students. The reference to the competitive dimension is only present in 33 % of
cases (Table 2) and indicates, however, a resistance or a desire not to emphasize
this dimension, both in relationships with other universities and as a tool to
support the economy.
Concerning weaknesses in the Italian university system, it is worth mentioning the
following points indicated by the universities which took part in the questionnaire
(Table 3):

(a) Financial issues, which are not only perceived as coming from a lack of funding
but also because universities find themselves unable to make long-term strategic
plans; moreover, this does not only concern public sources but also private ones;
(b) Bureaucratic, administrative and normative burdens and limited
internationalization;
(c) Inadequate links with the work environment and society;
(d) Effectiveness and efficiency in universities: insufficient competitiveness, a general
backwardness of the system and an organization that is focused on requirements
rather than objectives were highlighted;
(e) Problems in the selection and recruitment of researchers and academic staff;
(f) High levels of abandonment and irregularities in the course of study.
 310

Table 3 Elements of weakness: an overview

Elements of weakness First-tier (first place)a answers Second-tier (second Third-tier (third place) answers Fourth-tier (fourth Total
place) answers place) answers

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Inadequate funding 12.25 55.68 % 2 9.09 % 3 15.79 % 2 13.33 % 19.25 24.68 %

Bureaucratic and normative burdens 0.25 1.14 % 6 27.27 % 4 21.05 % 1 6.67 % 11.25 14.42 %
Limited internationalization 2 9.09 % 4.5 20.45 % 1 5.26 % 1 6.67 % 8.5 10.90 %
Inadequate relations with the labour market 1 4.55 % 2.5 11.36 % 3 15.79 % 1.5 10.00 % 8 10.26 %
and society
Problems in selection and recruitment of 0.00 % 2.5 11.36 % 2 10.53 % 1 6.67 % 5.5 7.05 %
academic and research staff
Inefficient and inadequate management of 0.00 % 1 4.55 % 1 5.26 % 3 20.00 % 5 6.41 %
establishment
Inadequate culture and evaluation systems 1 4.55 % 0.00 % 1 5.26 % 2 13.33 % 4 5.13 %
Drop-out rates, study issues, low number of 0.00 % 1 4.55 % 0.00 % 3 20.00 % 4 5.13 %
graduates and PhD students
Limited autonomy 2.25 10.23 % 0.5 2.27 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 2.75 3.53 %
Insufficient number of academic and 2 (academic staff only) 9.09 % 1 4.55 % 1 (academic staff only) 5.26 % 0.00 % 4 5.13 %
technical/admin. staff
Loss of university authority 0.00 % 1 4.55 % 1 5.26 % 0.00 % 2 2.56 %
Self-referentialism 1 4.55 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.5 3.33 % 1.5 1.92 %
Current national crisis 0.25 1.14 % 0.00 % 1 5.26 % 0.00 % 1.25 1.60 %
Inadequate technical resources 0.00 % 0.00 % 1 5.26 % 0.00 % 1 1.28 %
Total 22 100.00 % 22 100.00 % 19 100.00 % 15 100.00 % 78 100.00 %

a
Different tiers refer to diverse levels of importance attributed by respondents to various elements (see the questionnaire, in particular point b)
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 311

Table 4 Elements of strength: an overview

Elements of strength First-tier Second-tier Third-tier Fourth-tier Total

(first place) (second place) (third place) (fourth place)
answersa answers answers answers

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Quality and value 10 45.45 % 5 23.81 % 5 31.25 % 0.00 % 20 30.30 %

Tradition and cultural 1 4.55 % 7 33.33 % 5 31.25 % 0.00 % 13 19.70 %
capital
Collaboration, unity, 2 9.09 % 4 19.05 % 2 12.50 % 4 57.14 % 12 18.18 %
integration and
multidisciplinarity
Excellence 4 18.18 % 4 19.05 % 1 6.25 % 0.00 % 9 13.64 %
Creativity 2 9.09 % 0.00 % 2 12.50 % 1 14.29 % 5 7.58 %
Flexibility and ability 1 4.55 % 1 4.76 % 0.00 % 2 28.57 % 4 6.06 %
to change
Low contributions 2 9.09 % 0.00 % 1 6.25 % 0.00 % 3 4.55 %
and the right to
study
Total 22 100.00 % 21 100.00 % 16 100.00 % 7 100.00 % 66 100.00 %

a
As in the previous table, different tiers refer to diverse levels of importance attributed by respondents to
various elements (see the questionnaire, in particular point c)

As regards the strengths of the Italian university system, again based on the answers
given to the questionnaire shown in Table 4, it is worth mentioning (a) qualitative
profiles, in a broad sense, which refer to scholars, researchers, research and education;
(b) tradition and (c) collaboration, unity, integration and multidisciplinarity.
Regarding internal participation in the creation of vision and mission statements,
answers seem mainly to be limited to governing bodies and administrative groups (Table 5).
Regarding external participation in establishing vision and mission statements, this
mainly refers to local and national bodies and institutions; key figures from the world of
work and industry, companies, associations; students and families. At first glance, the
reference to the academic staff also proved significant (Table 6).
Students and lecturers thus appear as being involved from the outside—people with whom
the group within relates—rather than as internal groups, themselves active in the process of
formulating strategy. Situations where students and lecturers are shown to be involved with
the groups working from inside to formulate vision and mission statements are rare.
This points to internal policy approaches which are focused around governing
bodies and administrative and technical components of staff.
As is consistent with the wide range of participants summarized in the charts (Tables 5
and 6), in almost 70 % of cases, the establishment of university vision and mission
statements was held to be a consequence of a wide-ranging participatory process. Thirty
percent of participants, however, thought it was due to the work effort of a few people.
Asked to pinpoint areas in which policy making in universities can be improved, 18
out of 23 participants (78 %) gave an answer. Their observations converge on four main
areas of interest: (1) increased systematic participation and greater involvement, (2)
Table 5 Internal groups taking part in the establishment of vision and mission statements: an overview
312

Internal groups First levela Second level Third level

Single Entry Entry Total % Single Entry Total % Single Total %

entry plus one plus two entries entry plus two entries entry entries

Rector (incl. Vice-Rectors and delegates) 11 1 1 13 50.00 % 2 1 3 13.04 % 2 2 11.11 %

Other governing bodies (board of directors, 6 6 23.08 % 11 11 47.83 % 7 7 38.89 %
senate and others)
Heads of educational and scientific 1 1 1 3 11.54 % 3 1 4 17.39 % 2 2 11.11 %
establishments (heads of department,
chairmen of study courses and others)
Administrative personnel and technical groups 2 1 3 11.54 % 3 1 4 17.39 % 5 5 27.78 %
Consultancy, guarantee, evaluation and 0.00 % 0.00 % 2 2 11.11 %
control groups and organizations
Others 1 1 3.85 % 1 1 4.35 % 0.00 %
Total entries 21 2 3 26 100.00 % 20 3 23 100.00 % 18 18 100.00 %
Total respondents 21 1 1 23 20 1 21 18 18

Internal groups Fourth level Fifth level Sixth level Total

Single Total % Single Total % Single Total % No. %

entry entries entry entries entries entries

Rector (incl. Vice-Rectors and delegates) 1 1 8.33 % 1 1 20.00 % 0.00 % 20 23.53 %

Other governing bodies (board of directors, 1 1 8.33 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 25 29.41 %
senate and others)
2 2 16.67 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 11 12.94 %
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328
Table 5 (continued)

Internal groups Fourth level Fifth level Sixth level Total

Single Total % Single Total % Single Total % No. %

entry entries entry entries entries entries

Heads of educational and scientific

establishments (heads of department,
chairmen of study courses and others)
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Administrative personnel and technical groups 6 6 50.00 % 1 1 20.00 % 1 1 100.00 % 20 23.53 %

Consultancy, guarantee, evaluation and 2 2 16.67 % 3 3 60.00 % 0.00 % 7 8.24 %
control groups and organizations
Others 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 2 2.35 %
Total entries 12 12 100.00 % 5 5 100.00 % 1 1 100.00 % 85 100.00 %
Total respondents 12 12 5 5 1 1

Entry plus one two elements are indicated at the same level, for example, Rector and Pro-Rectors, Entry plus two three elements are indicated at the same level, for example, Rector,
Pro-Rector and delegates
a
Different levels refer to various groups indicated by the respondents (see the questionnaire, in particular point f). Obviously, the first answer has to be considered the most immediate
and because of that, expressive of the part which is more relevant for the respondent
313
Table 6 Involvement of stakeholders in establishing vision and mission statements: an overview
314

Stakeholders First levela Second level Third level Fourth level

Single Entry plus Entry Total % Single Total % Single Entry plus Total % Single
entry one plus two entries entry entries entry one entries entry

Students and their families 6 1 7 26.92 % 4 4 19.05 % 2 2 10.00 % 1

Representatives from the labour market, 2 2 7.69 % 5 5 23.81 % 4 1 5 25.00 % 3
companies, associations
Academic staff 5 1 6 23.08 % 1 1 4.76 % 0 0.00 %
Tech./admin. staff and unions 1 1 2 7.69 % 2 2 9.52 % 5 5 25.00 % 1
National and local bodies and institutions 3 1 4 15.38 % 6 6 28.57 % 3 1 4 20.00 % 3
Generically indicated entities and institutions 2 1 3 11.54 % 1 1 4.76 % 1 1 5.00 % 1
Other academic establishments 0 0.00 % 1 1 4.76 % 0 0.00 % 1
University areas and structures 1 1 3.85 % 1 1 4.76 % 1 1 5.00 % 1
Other (schools, funding agents and others) 1 1 3.85 % 0 0.00 % 2 2 10.00 % 1
Total entries 21 2 3 26 100.00 % 21 21 100.00 % 18 2 20 100.00 % 12
Total respondents 21 1 1 23 21 21 18 1 19 12

Stakeholders Fourth level Fifth level Sixth level Total

Entry plus Total % Single Total % Single Entry plus Total % No. %
one entries entry entries entry one entries

Students and their families 1 2 14.29 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 15 16.85 %

Representatives from the labour market, 3 21.43 % 0 0.00 % 1 1 33.33 % 16 17.98 %
companies, associations
Academic staff 0 0.00 % 1 1 20.00 % 0 0.00 % 8 8.99 %
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328
Table 6 (continued)

Stakeholders Fourth level Fifth level Sixth level Total

Entry plus Total % Single Total % Single Entry plus Total % No. %
one entries entry entries entry one entries

Tech./admin. staff and unions 1 7.14 % 0 0.00 % 1 1 33.33 % 11 12.36 %

National and local bodies and institutions 3 21.43 % 1 1 20.00 % 0 0.00 % 18 20.22 %
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Generically indicated entities and institutions 1 7.14 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 6 6.74 %

Other academic establishments 1 7.14 % 1 1 20.00 % 0 0.00 % 3 3.37 %
University areas and structures 1 7.14 % 1 1 20.00 % 1 1 33.33 % 6 6.74 %
Other (schools, funding agents and others) 1 2 14.29 % 1 1 20.00 % 0 0.00 % 6 6.74 %
Total entries 2 14 100.00 % 5 5 100.00 % 1 2 3 100.00 % 89 100.00 %
Total respondents 1 13 5 5 1 1 2

Entry plus one two elements are indicated at the same level, Entry plus two three elements are indicated at the same level
a
As in the previous table, different levels refer to various groups indicated by the respondents (see the questionnaire, in particular point g). Obviously, the first answer has to be
considered the most immediate and because of that, expressive of the part which is more relevant for the respondent
315
316 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

greater importance being given to the role of data and more frequent monitoring of
indicators, (3) a wider range of people being made responsible for policy planning and
achieving objectives and (4) the development of conditions to improve systematic
integrated planning, with particular importance being given to the need for stability
in regulatory aspects and public funding.
In particular, the analysis and classification of responses shows that 12 universities
have selected at least one of the first two points; in three cases, both the first and second
were chosen.
The possibility of wider systematic participation and greater involvement, men-
tioned in 7 of 22 observations, is clear and immediate and concerns not only expansion
but also the frequency, continuity and institutionalization of consultation (Bentivoglio
et al. 2014). The observations presented here which are centred on the need to improve
systematic consultation services allow for a better evaluation of the general opinion
given on the creation of vision and mission statements, shown as originating, above all,
from broad participatory processes in almost 70 % of cases.

Discussion

The discussion centred around the main categories that permitted an analysis and
classification of declarations of vision and mission in the previous section, concluding
with a reflection on strong and weak points, the degree of participation and areas of
improvement.

Education/Student

Of all profiles taken into consideration, the reference to education is the most wide-
spread. It is evident in 88 out of 89 universities from which online sources were taken
into consideration, and the one remaining case refers to a mission statement which is
indirectly connected to the educational process. In ten (that is to say 11 %) of the
institutions considered, this point is central. This centrality was understood as being
based on the convergence of strategic declarations on the issue, prospects and concrete
educational objectives.
In the ten cases mentioned above, there is a direct focus on the student, and, in
general, the objective is to promote a system of education that can meet the demands
made by society and the labour market. On the whole, this is the case in some
nationally well-known centres for learning, also thanks to significant research results.
In 78 of 88 cases considered (equal to 89 % of the total), the reference to education is
present but does not appear to be of central importance compared to other objectives,
first of which being research. In the statements made by 41 of these institutions (53 %),
a direct reference to the student is included in a wider perspective and is not limited to
learning but is inclusive of the beneficiary of the effort (Table 1).

Research/Development of Knowledge

The reference to the research function of universities is the second most common
among those considered. It is present in 86 cases out of the 89 for which it has been
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 317

possible to collect a vision or mission statement. In 10 (that is 12 %) of the 86

universities, the reference to research is a central one. In five out of the ten cases where
research is central, the main reference is to professional knowledge. In the remaining 76
cases (that is 88 %) out of 86, there is a reference to research, but it does not have a
central role in comparison to the other functions. In 39 (51 %) out of these 76 cases, the
main reference is to professional knowledge (Table 1).
A reference to research is, therefore, contained in the mission and vision
statements of 97 % of Italian universities for which it was possible to collect data
(94 % of the total). It has been assessed that research occupies a central role in the
statements (11 % of the cases) when the reference to it is repeated or emphasized,
or there is a statement that defines it as ‘the purpose’ or the main purpose, or there
is a declared ambition. Despite the fact that it is the main purpose for a minority,
all the universities considered declare a research purpose with the only exception
of two online universities and a higher education institution specializing in the
humanities. Therefore, research is strongly emphasized in Italian universities’
vision and mission statements, and it is more frequent than the other two main
missions of teaching and third mission.
The emphasis on research is certainly a genuine goal and aspiration, but it can also
be interpreted with that phenomenon of ‘competition for reputation’ which leads to an
isomorphism of mission statements, which tend to imitate the statements of organiza-
tions with greater reputation (Van Vught 2008). In fact, the variable part of state
funding to the Italian university system is mainly dependent on research performance,
and there is an expectation of a growth in the correlation between state funding and
research performance.
The fact that the reference to the development of professional knowledge is not
so dominant, despite the strong demand in this sense from families and students,
suggests that state funding linked to research and competition for reputation are
the most explanatory variables for the priority of the research mission. The
interpretation of university education in terms of ‘positional goods’ is able to
reconcile the apparent contradiction between universities focused on competition
for reputation and students, who apparently ask for professionalizing knowledge
(Tavoletti 2004, 2010).

Third Mission

The so-called third mission of universities is the most recent among the three
main missions of universities, and it is potentially both the most critical and the
one that most needs functional innovation in the organization of universities
(Laredo 2007).
By third mission, we mean the transfer of knowledge to society and not just
students, and in such forms as to contribute to social and economic progress.
Three main approaches to the third mission have been identified (Montesinos
et al. 2008): the ‘triple helix model’ approach of university-industry-government
relationship, that focuses on the dynamics between these national actors
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000); the approach related to the type of knowl-
edge produced by universities, if strictly disciplinary or application-oriented
(Gibbons 1994) and the approach which refers to the values of the university
318 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

and its internal organization, whether traditional or innovative (Solé-Parellada

et al. 2001). Here, we limit ourselves to remembering the three approaches for
the sole purpose of clarifying the concept of third mission. In fact, as our
analysis is limited to what is stated in vision and mission statements, without
examining the actual implementation of those statements, we assessed the
presence of a reference to the third mission every time we recorded a reference
to one of the three approaches. We also assessed a reference to the third
mission when the university considers itself an economic actor or an institution
that supports local development (Tavoletti 2009).
The reference to the third mission is contained in the statements of mission and
vision of 74 % of the Italian universities for which it was possible to collect these
statements (94 % of the total). It has been assessed that the third mission occupies a
central role in the statements (2 % of the cases) when the reference to it is repeated or
emphasized, or there is a statement that defines it as ‘the purpose’ or the main purpose,
or there is a declared ambition (Table 1).
The reference to the third mission in vision and mission statements is almost never
interpreted in terms of playing a direct role in economic activity, with an explicit
reference to the creation of spin-offs and start-ups, but in terms of service to the
economy or the community.

Internationalization

The reference to ‘internationalization’ is contained in the statements of mission and

vision of 81 % of the Italian universities for which it was possible to collect these
statements (Table 1). It has been assessed that internationalization occupies a central
role in the statements (13 % of the cases) when the reference to it is repeated or
emphasized, or there is a statement that defines it as the purpose or the main purpose, or
there is a declared ambition.
In most of the cases, the reference to internationalization is not specified in geo-
graphical terms, but references to Europe and in some cases to the Mediterranean and
other neighbouring areas are frequent. The idea that globalization gives a boost to the
new mission of internationalization is confirmed (Scott 2006).
The international mobility of academics and the ability to attract academic stars
became important factors in explaining the international flows of knowledge and the
creation of ‘localized intangible assets’ (Schiller and Diez 2012). In addition, academic
mobility has gradually evolved from individuals (students, researchers, teachers) to
programs (double degrees, joint degrees) and ‘providers’ (branches abroad, universities
not clearly identifiable with a single nation state), assuming not only the traditional
forms of cooperation and partnership but increasingly those of competition (Knight
2013).
The vision and mission statements of Italian universities appear mainly oriented
towards the mobility of individuals and sometimes programs, while the reference
to foreign branches is almost completely absent. The low capacity to attract
foreign students of the Italian university system (just 4 % of students are for-
eigners in comparison to an OECD average of 8 %) mark, however, a delay even
in the most traditional form of internationalization that is represented by student
mobility (OECD 2014, p. 354). It can therefore be assumed that the strong
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 319

reference to internationalization in vision and mission statements is a sign of the

will to recover positions in international comparison.

Local Engagement

The reference to the ‘local’ or territorial dimension is contained in the mission and
vision statements of 72 % of the Italian universities for which it was possible to collect
these statements (Table 1). It has been assessed that the local dimension occupies a
central role in statements (9 % of the cases) where the reference to it is repeated or
emphasized, or there is a statement that defines it as the purpose or the main purpose, or
there is a declared ambition.
Although the reference to internationalization appears slightly more wide-
spread, the reference to the local and territorial dimension reaches comparable
high values, indicating that local roots are not perceived as inconsistent with
internationalization but they are rather seen as instrumental to internationaliza-
tion, just as internationalization is instrumental to local economic development
(Schiller and Diez 2012).
The literature on the relationship between higher education and local devel-
opment is large (for a review, see Tavoletti 2007, 2009) as well as evidence to
support the mutual benefit of a closer relationship between universities and
local society. The majority of vision and mission statements show that aware-
ness. In some cases, however, where the reference is absent, it is conceivable to
be due to the fear that a reference to the territory might harm the national and
international dimension of the university: the competition for reputation (Van
Vught 2008). In fact, that leads to an emulation of the mission statements of
the most prestigious and international universities, and some universities ignore
or do not emphasize the territorial dimension. It is desirable that national
incentive mechanisms, which often intentionally disregard all too subjective
territorial impact assessments in order to focus on the abstract and international
value of research products, do not produce a harmful separation between
universities and their host territories, as some vision and mission statements
could portend. This, in addition to being misaligned from the best international
practices, would be particularly regrettable in a country that finds in some of its
important competitive advantages in its territories and their distinctive features.

Categories Related to Competition and Collaboration

A reference to competitive categories is found in the vision and mission statements of

35 % of the Italian universities for which it was possible to collect these statements
(Table 2). A reference to competitive categories was assessed every time the compet-
itive features of a university were compared to those of other centres for learning or the
competitiveness of national or regional educational systems.
Considering the strong competitive pressure that has come to characterize
higher education at national and international level, including the debate on its
excesses (Mause 2009), we expected to see a strong reference to competitive
categories: ‘’Buzzwords like strategy, quality, global player and competitive edge
have become de rigueur for university managers and for policy makers within
320 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Europe. This occurs at the same time as the European conception or the ‘useful-
ness’ and ‘value-added’ of the university, college and technical institute is slowly
changing’ (Deiaco et al. 2009, p. 308). However, although forced into increasing
levels of competition by an increasingly evident lack of resources, Italian univer-
sities that pinpoint this issue in their strategic policies are not in the majority. This
could be due to the peculiar, fully public, nature of the Italian university system,
as shown by the European Process Implementation Report, ‘all institutions are
considered public in six education systems (Andorra, Belgium (French Commu-
nity), Denmark, Finland, Greece and Italy)’ (EACEA 2012, p. 22).
The reference to collaborative categories was linked to any explicit mention of forms
of collaboration—more or less well-structured—with other public or private parties.
We do not know how often the collaborative positions actually corresponded to
concrete initiatives; in any case, however, their inclusion in strategic policies is an
expression of the positive values attributed to them and of the opportunity to commu-
nicate them. In this respect, it should be pointed out that collaboration is significantly
higher than competition, with 56 % for the first and 35 % for the second, with a
difference of 21 % (Table 2).
The meaning and implications of competition for research as an advantage were less
diffuse. The difference lessens substantially in the group of universities participating in
the study, with 61 % mentioning collaboration, while competition is seen in 52 % cases.
The difference is equal to 9 %. On one hand, this group expresses an increased
willingness to collaborate, as well as an increased awareness of the value of competition
and the importance of communicating fundamental choices in strategic positioning.

Strengths and Weaknesses in the Italian Higher Education System

With regard to strengths in Italian universities, the study emphasizes the following
profiles:

– Quality and value (in 30 % of answers) understood in a wide sense, for example,
referring to ‘scholars and researchers’, ‘research’, ‘well-educated students, appre-
ciated abroad’, ‘university staff’ and ‘basic disciplinary formation’;
– Tradition and cultural capital (20 % of answers), expressing, for example, ‘Italian
culture in history and the world’, ‘historical cultural capital’, ‘historial, artistic,
cultural tradition’, ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘the presence of some of the oldest
universities in the world’;
– Collaboration, union, integration and multidisciplinarity (in 18 % of answers), for
example, referring to ‘collaboration with local authorities’, ‘strong integration of
research and manufacturing’, ‘strong inclination towards multidisciplinarity’ and
‘university involvement in consortiums, companies and foundations by means of
collaborative agreements and memoranda of understanding with universities, au-
thorities, public and private organizations for the achievement of institutional
goals’;
– Excellence (14 % of answers), for example, ‘peaks of excellence in some fields’,
‘scientific output of specific researchers’, ‘peaks and areas of excellence’, ‘indi-
vidual exceptionalism’ and ‘areas and/or fields with high levels of international
recognition’ (Table 4).
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 321

When it came to identifying weaknesses in the Italian system, participants indicated

the overwhelming presence of external factors, in particular inadequate funding, 25 %
of cases, and bureaucratic and administrative burdens, 14 % of cases. They also
indicated limited autonomy, inadequate technical and human resources and the current
national crisis.
Also highlighted, in a less cohesive way, are difficulties with mainly internal
causes, such as lack of internationalization, 11 % of cases, inadequate links to
the labour market and society, 10 % of cases, as well as self-referentialism,
inefficient and inadequate management of universities, inadequate culture and
evaluation systems, drop-out rates, study issues and a low number of graduates
and PhD students (Table 3).
Some elements of weakness such as the lack of cooperation between universities and
the labour market are found all over Europe (Laursen and Salter 2004, p. 1212), so
much so that in some cases they are intrinsic to the highly specialized nature of
research: ‘Due to the highly specific nature of the know-how involved, only a select
set of firms within specific industries will be interested in the scientific know-how
offered by universities or other science institutes.’ (Veugelers and Cassiman 2003, p. 2).
However, it is widely thought that, current weaknesses and difficulties notwithstanding,
the relationship between universities and companies is destined to increase (Charles
2006). In this context, universities are key stakeholders in achieving a sustainable
future, and it is to be expected that they develop pro-active organizations characterized
by a strong, clear vision which are able to make their mark on society (Ferrer-Balas
et al. 2008, p. 295).

Involvement of External and Internal Subjects in the Definition of Vision

and Mission

Involving internal and external participants in planning processes ensures higher

quality decisions (based on increased information and awareness) as well as a positive
impact on organization, because by communicating with and listening to others, one is
better placed to understand one’s contribution (Tables 5 and 6).
Over two thirds of universities responding to our study approached the issue
of strategy in a participative way. This is seen as positive even though, as
already mentioned, it was expressed by a group with clear strategic profiles
compared with the more general approach of Italian universities. A broad
approach does not preclude the existence of concerns. The figure of 32 %,
indicating that there is room for improvement in participation processes, actu-
ally refers to wider systematic forms of participation, increased involvement of
interlocutors, and these were selected by 86 % of universities that consider the
establishment of their vision and mission statements as originating from broad
participatory processes (Table 7).
The scope for wider, more systematic participation and greater involvement,
seen in 7 of 22 observations, is clear-cut, calling for more general, frequent,
continuous and institutionalized consultations: ‘increased involvement of staff
and students’, ‘more frequent consultation of stakeholders (not exclusively
when defining aims)’, ‘a constructive and ongoing dialogue with interlocutors’
and ‘regular meetings to improve ongoing results’. Comments made on the
322 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Table 7 Areas of improvement in university strategic planning: answers listed according to area of improve-
ment identified
responses responses
concerning concerning total observations
Areas of improvement in university strategic planning one area of several areas
interest of interest No. %
strengthening of management control, increasing reliance on data and
5 8 36.36%
more frequent monitoring of indicators 3

increased extensive and systematic participation and involvement 3 7 31.82%

1
increased accountability for strategic planning and achievement of
2 3 13.64%
objectives

development of adequate conditions for systematic integrated planning,

2 2 9.09%
in particular stability in regulatory aspects and public funding

other 2 2 9.09%

4 in two
total 14
profiles
22 100.00%

importance of greater systematic consultation processes enable an improved

evaluation of general opinions about the formulation of vision and mission
statements, shown as the outcome of broad participatory processes in 70 %
of cases.
The improvement of management supervision—with increased importance being
given to data and the systematic monitoring of indicators—are evident in 8 of 22
opinions. One university in particular sums it up significantly by speaking of ‘the need
for a solid, sole source of data within the university, improving our reporting system [..]
and the need for a structured, fully operational management control system [..]’. Others
draw attention to data, speaking of the need for ‘increased data loyalty’ and ‘increased
use of sharing platforms’.
Several answers emphasize monitoring, benchmarking and revision activities
with the aim of improvement. To this end, greater responsibility for strategic
policies and the achievement of goals and the development of conditions
(regulatory aspects and the stabilization of resources) is needed to encourage
more systematic, integrated planning. Guiding the organization of universities
by encouraging the cooperation that is necessary for creating social value is not
at all easy. Several barriers to this can be identified, such as insufficient lack of
incentive, insufficient input from society, resistance to change and individual
freedom of lecturers and researchers (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008; Holmberg and
Samuelsson 2006).
Among these, individual freedom features highly in university organizations as a
factor that makes adopting strategies more difficult, as individuality must be guided
towards spontaneous collaboration. Nevertheless, it cannot be resolved by simply
limiting and tightening up university organizations, as it (freedom) is a fundamental
starting point for the creativity and evolution of knowledge that permits sustainable
development (Altbach 2011).
It follows that leadership, a feeling of belonging, cohesion and organizational
wellness are essential to an effective coordinated expression of creativity and geniu,
and for the accomplishment of an incisive, harmonious educational strategy.
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 323

This feeling of belonging is born primarily of an awareness of the impor-

tance of the service being rendered and the meaning which can be attributed to
one’s work. Above all, it depends on how clear the university’s position is
within the context of reference.

Conclusions

Of the 95 universities surveyed, 43 (representing approximately 45 % of the total) give

evidence of the existence of a specific strategic plan on their websites and about 91 %
of them make their strategic plan available online. This document was the fundamental
source for the acquisition of the statements of vision and mission. In many cases,
however, when an autonomous strategic plan was missing, data have been collected
from other documents (such as statutes, the social budget or level of performance) or
from the websites.
It was possible to obtain information on the vision and mission of 89 universities out
of 95, representing approximately 94 % of the total; 23 out of 95 universities,
representing approximately 24 % of the total, responded to the questionnaire, providing
more detailed information on their vision and mission, on their strategic planning and
the university system.
Formalized strategic planning is focused on the three main functions of the
university: education, research and third mission. The first two traditional
functions are almost always present, in 99 and 97 % of cases, respectively;
the third mission is present in 74 % of cases. The reference to the student is
present in 57 % of cases and is central in 11 % of them; the creation of new
knowledge is conceived in terms of professional knowledge in 49 % of cases
and is central in 6 % of them (Table 1).
In addition to the three main functions of higher education, the other most
recurrent concepts are those related to internationalization, 81 % of cases, and
territory, 72 % of cases (Table 1). Categories related to competition with other
universities or in more general terms are present in 35 % of cases. Categories
related to cooperation with other universities or third parties are present in
56 % of cases (Table 2).
The sub-group of universities that responded to the questionnaire (23 out of 95)
confirms the trends over the entire population of Italian universities for which it was
possible to collect data (89 out of 95) but registers higher rates along all the variables
considered, characterizing these universities as more pro-active in dealing with the
environment and its changes: more frequently formalized strategic planning; more
frequent reference and centrality of the student and of a conception of professionalizing
knowledge; more frequent reference to the third mission, internationalization, and
territorial dimension; and more frequent reference to both competitive and collaborative
categories.
Concerning the main factors of weakness in the Italian university system,
respondents indicated the overwhelming presence of external factors: ‘Inade-
quate funding’ and ‘bureaucratic and administrative burdens’ stand out as they
make up over 39 % of observations, but internal issues were not overlooked
(Table 3). The most frequently identified strengths are quality and value,
324 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

followed by tradition and cultural capital, collaboration, unity, integration and

multidisciplinarity (Table 4). All told, the system that emerges—within a con-
text of considerable pressure and obstacles—is required to (1) overcome inter-
nal obstacles to increase internationalization, cooperation with the labour market
and society and academic achievement and (2) enhance positive factors ex-
pressing shared profiles of quality, tradition and cultural capital, integration and
multidisciplinarity and excellence and creativity.
Regarding internal involvement in policy formulation, answers to the ques-
tionnaire uncover a tendency to focus on governing bodies and administrative
groups (Table 5). With regard to external involvement, the following stakehold-
er groups emerge: national and local authorities and institutions; representatives
from the labour market, companies, associations; students and their families.
Lecturers and other participants are also mentioned, though less frequently
(Table 6). Students and lecturers are mainly considered as external parties and
not as a part of the internal processes upon which the university community
should focus.
Roughly 54 % of universities do not possess an official policy plan and if we include
universities which do not draw one up specifically, but include it in the performance
plan required by law, this figure goes up to 75 %. Policy planning, therefore, is often
not perceived as necessary.
However, a group of universities stands out: Representing approximately
25 % of the total, they have made the strategic plan an important steering tool
for internal and external communication. In these cases, the plan appears very
articulate in the analysis of the external environment, internal resources and
positioning. While taking note of the limited diffusion of the strategic plan in
Italian universities, the outlined trends point to a growing use of the document,
both as a managerial and communication tool, encouraged by autonomy, and as
a means of legitimization and accountability for stakeholders and the national
government.
An important perspective for future research would be to investigate the gap
between what is stated in strategic plans and what is actually implemented; in a
recent survey of 16 Dutch public universities, specifically related to strategic
plans for internationalization and based on 73 interviews with key actors, this
gap has emerged as significant in some specific areas and has identifiable
causes (de Haan 2014). Taking into account that the Dutch higher education
system has been among the first to adopt strategic management tools and
innovative models of governance (Lazzeretti and Tavoletti 2005, 2006), it is
legitimate to assume the presence of an ‘implementation gap’ worthy of inves-
tigation also in the Italian higher education system. Further prospects for future
research are making a comparison between different experiences of strategic
planning in the European area of higher education.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 325

Appendix 1
VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS OF UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD –The questionnaire
a. In my opinion, the function of the University nowadays is
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
b. The main weaknesses of the University system in my country, in an international comparison, are [list them from the most
significant to the least significant]:
1. ………………………………………………………………………………
2. ………………………………………………………………………………
3. ………………………………………………………………………………
4. ………………………………………………………………………………
c. The main strengths of the University system in my country, in an international comparison, are (list them from the most
significant to the least significant):
1. ………………………………………………………………………………
2. ………………………………………………………………………………
3. ………………………………………………………………………………
4. ………………………………………………………………………………
d. In my University,
the vision statement is informal only (not found in any official document)
there is a vision statement: [please specify]
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…… you can find it in the following documents:
1 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
2 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
3 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
e. In my University,
the mission statement is informal only (not found in any official document)
there is a mission statement: [please specify]/
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…… you can find it in the following documents:
1 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
2 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
3 ……………… ( it isn’t on the web it is on the web - http://......................................)
f. In my University, vision and mission statements are a result of the work of the following internal bodies:
1. ……………………………………………………………………
2. ……………………………………………………………………
3. ……………………………………………………………………
4. ……………………………………………………………………
5. ……………………………………………………………………
6. ……………………………………………………………………
g. In strategic planning, the aforesaid bodies usually work consulting the following stakeholder groups:
1. ……………………………………………………………………
2. ……………………………………………………………………
3. ……………………………………………………………………
4. ……………………………………………………………………
5. ……………………………………………………………………
6. ……………………………………………………………………
h. To sum up, in my University, vision and mission statements are mostly a result of:
the hard work of few people
participatory processes
i. I would like to improve the strategic planning process of my University in this way:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you!
Do you authorize us to collect, store and use the information and the considerations you have kindly given us?
Yes No
326 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

References

Altbach, P. G. (2011). Present and future of the research university. In P. G. Altbach & J. Salmi (Eds.), The
road to academic excellence: the making of world-class research universities. Washington: The World
Bank.
Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. M. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford:
Oxford university press.
Bartkus, B., Glassman, M., & McAfee, B. (2006). Mission statement quality and financial performance.
European Management Journal, 24(1), 86–94.
Bentivoglio, C. A., D’Antini, G., Gison, G., & Giusepponi, K. (2014). Data warehouse, reporting and
stakeholder engagement. Achievements of the University of Macerata. Journal of e-Learning and
Knowledge Society, 10(2), 77–89.
Bingham, F. G., Quigley, C. J., & Murray, K. B. (2001). A response to beyond the mission statement:
alternative futures for today’s universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(4), 19–27.
Camelia, G., & Marius, P. (2013). ‘Mission statements in higher education: context analysis and research
propositions’, Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22(2).
Campbell, S. M. (2008). Vision, mission, goals, and program objectives for academic advising programs’. In
V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: a comprehensive handbook (pp.
229–241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Capano, G. (1998). La politica universitaria. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Carruthers, J. K., & Lott, G. B. (1981). Mission review: foundation for strategic planning. Boulder: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Chait, R. (1979). ‘Mission madness strikes our colleges’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 36.
Charles, D. (2006). Universities as key knowledge infrastructures in regional innovation systems. Innovation,
19(1), 117–130.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of transformation. New
York: Elsevier.
Connell, I., & Galasinski, D. (1998). Academic mission statements: an exercise in negotiation. Discourse and
Society, 9(4), 457–479.
Davies, G. K. (1986). The importance of being general: philosophy, politics and institutional mission
statements’. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research. New York:
Agathon Press.
Davies, S. W., & Glaister, K. W. (1996). Spurs to higher things? Mission statements of UK universities.
Higher Education Quarterly, 50, 261–294.
Davies, S. W., & Glaister, K. W. (1997). Business school mission statements the bland leading the bland?
Long Range Planning, 30(4), 594–604.
De Haan, H. (2014). Where is the gap between internationalisation strategic planning and its implementation?
A study of 16 Dutch universities’ internationalisation plans. Tertiary Education & Management, 20(2),
135–150.
De Jager, G. (2011). Missions on the move: university systems in England, New York State and California.
Higher Education Management & Policy, 23(1), 1–23.
Deiaco, E., Holmén, M., & McKelvey, M. (2009). ‘What does it mean conceptually that universities
compete?’, in McKelvey, M. & Holmén, M. (Eds.), Learning to compete in European universities:
From social institution to knowledge business, Elgar Publishing.
Desmidt, S., & Prinzie, A. A. (2008). ‘The impact of mission statements: an empirical analysis from a
sensemaking perspective’. Academy Of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6.
Desmidt, S., & Prinzie, A. (2009). ‘The effectiveness of mission statements: an explorative analysis from a
communication perspective’, Academy Of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6.
EACEA. (2012). The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process Implementation Report.
Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to
a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C. I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., &
Ostwald, M. (2008). An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven
universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 295–316.
Finley, D. S., Rogers, G., & Galloway, J. R. (2001). Beyond the mission statement: alternative futures for
today’s universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 63–82.
J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328 327

Fugazzotto, S. (2009). Mission statements, physical space, and strategy in higher education. Innovative Higher
Education, 34(5), 285–298.
Gibbons, A. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education.
Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 267–285.
Grupe, F. H. (1983). Competition and cooperation in american higher education. Journal of Higher Education,
54(3), 348–350.
Hartley, M. (2002). A call to purpose: mission-centered change at three liberal arts colleges. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Holmberg, J., & Samuelsson, B. (Eds.). (2006). Drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable develop-
ment in higher education. Paris: Unesco.
Hood, C. (1995). The BNew Public Management^ in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 20(2), 93–109.
Huisman, J. (Ed.). (2009). International perspectives on the governance of higher education. London:
Routledge.
James, H., & Huisman, J. (2009). Missions statements in Wales: the impact of markets and policy on
congruence between institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(1), 23–35.
Knight, J. (2013). Three generations of crossborder higher education: new developments, issues and chal-
lenges. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 23(2), 43–58.
Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between mission and market position: empirical findings on mission statements of
German higher education institutions. Tertiary Education & Management, 18(1), 57–77.
Kuenssberg, S. (2011). The discourse of self-presentation in Scottish university mission statements. Quality in
Higher Education, 17(3), 279–298.
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: toward a renewed categorization of university
activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). BSearching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of
innovation?^, October 1201–1215.
Lazzeretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2005). Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case
of the entrepreneurial University of Twente. European Planning Studies, 13(3), 475–493.
Lazzeretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2006). Governance shifts in higher education: a cross-national comparison.
European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1.
Maassen, P. (2000). Higher education and the stakeholder society. European Journal of Education, 35(4),
377–383.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education,
52(1), 1–39.
Martin, W. B. (1985). Mission: a statement of identity and direction’. In J. S. Green & A. Levine (Eds.),
Opportunity in adversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mause, K. (2009). Too much competition in higher education? Some conceptual remarks on the excessive-
signaling hypothesis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68(5), 1107–1133.
McKelvie, B. D. (1986). The university’s statement of goals: an idea whose time has come. Higher Education,
15, 151–163.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
Montesinos, P., Carot, J., Martinez, J., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities:
beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 259–271.
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: a thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional
type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471.
Mukerjee, S. (2014). Agility: a crucial capability for universities in times of disruptive change and innovation.
Australian Universities Review, 56(1), 56–60.
Neave, G. (2002). ‘The stakeholder perspective historically explored’, in Enders J. And F. Oliver (2002),
Higher education in a globalising world. International trends and mutual observations, Kluwer academic
publishers (NL).
Neave, G., & van Vught, F. A. (1991). Prometheus bound; the changing relationship between government and
higher education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Neave, G., Huisman, J., & Maassen, P. (Eds.). (2000). Higher education and the nation state. Oxford: Elsevier
Pergamon for IAU.
Newsom, W. A., & Hayes, C. R. (1991). ‘Are mission statements worthwhile?’, Planning for Higher
Education, 19.
328 J Knowl Econ (2018) 9:301–328

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. knowledge and the public in an age of
uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD Press.
Ortega y Gassett, J. (1944). Mission of the university. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Özdem, G. (2011). An analysis of the mission and vision statements on the strategic plans of higher education
institutions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(4), 1887–1894.
Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2009). University Governance. Western European
comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rossi, F. (2009). Increased competition and diversity in higher education: an empirical analysis of the italian
university system. Higher Education Policy, 22(4), 389–413.
Schiller, D., & Diez, J. (2012). The impact of academic mobility on the creation of localized intangible assets.
Regional Studies, 46(10), 1319–1332.
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: medieval to postmodern transformations. Journal of Higher
Education, 77(1), 1–39.
Sidhu, J. (2003). Mission statements: is it time to shelve them? European Management Journal, 21(4), 439.
Solé-Parellada, F., Coll-Bertran, J., & Navarro-Hernández, T. (2001). University design and development.
Higher Education in Europe, 26(3), 341–350.
Tavoletti, E. (2004). Higher education and high intellectual unemployment: does education matter? An
interpretation and some critical perspectives’. In P. Cooke & A. Piccaluga (Eds.), Regional economies
as knowledge laboratories (pp. 20–37). U.K.: Elgar Publishers.
Tavoletti, E. (2007). Assessing the regional economic impact of higher education institutions: an application to
the University of Cardiff. Transition Studies Review, 14(3), 505–521.
Tavoletti, E. (2009). Higher education and local economic development. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Tavoletti, E. (2010). Matching higher education with the labour market in the knowledge economy: the much-
needed reform of university governance in Italy. Industry & Higher Education, 24(5), 361–375.
Vaira, M. (2011). La costruzione della riforma universitaria e dell’autonomia didattica: idee, norme, pratiche,
attori. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.
Van Vught, F. (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kinsley
Publishers.
Van Vught, F. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21, 151–
174.
Velcoff, J., & Ferrari, R. (2006). Perceptions of university mission statement by senior administrators: relating
to faculty engagement. Christian Higher Education, 5(4), 329–339.
Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2003). ‘R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical
evidence from Belgian manufacturing’, March, available at: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/
123456789/118346/1/
Vincow, G. (1997). The student-centered research university. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 165.
Woodrow, J. (2006). Institutional mission: the soul of Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education,
5(4), 313–327.