In the contemporary knowledge-based society, the role of universities extends beyond the traditional functions of teaching and research, with increasing attention devoted to the university’s third mission.

The third mission is commonly understood as the relationship between higher education and society that goes beyond the first (education) and second (research) missions of universities (Görason, Maharajh & Schmoch, 2009). Traditionally, it has been conceptualised as a set of functions distinct from teaching and research activities (Vorley & Nelles, 2008). These functions encompass a wide range of activities related to the generation, dissemination, application and exploitation of knowledge and other institutional capabilities beyond academic environments, involving external stakeholders and society more broadly (Secundo et al., 2017). Through the third mission, universities increasingly position themselves as key actors in economic, social and cultural development, transforming into engaged institutions that interact closely with industry and society at large (Vorley & Nelles, 2008).

The third mission emphasises two interrelated objectives: participation and change (Del Gottardo, 2014). Participation refers to the capacity of universities to design and implement innovative strategies for knowledge dissemination and co-creation, involving communities as active partners rather than passive recipients. Change, in turn, reflects the responsibility of universities to actively promote social transformation through continuing education, lifelong learning and capacity-building initiatives (Del Gottardo & Rossiello, 2022). By pursuing these objectives, universities play a critical role in fostering inclusivity both within their institutional boundaries and in the wider societal context (Giuri et al., 2019).

As scholars increasingly emphasise the importance of university engagement in regional well-being and development, a variety of conceptual frameworks have emerged, including the “civic university” (Goddard & Vallance, 2013), the “regionally engaged university” (Goddard & Vallance, 2011, in Taieb, 2024), as well as notions such as the “entrepreneurial university”, “technology transfer” (Trencher et al., 2014). Within this body of literature, the third mission is progressively conceptualised not as an auxiliary function alongside teaching and research, but as a relational and societal orientation embedded in the core identity of higher education institutions. Rather than focusing narrowly on economic valorisation, the literature highlights the social, cultural and intergenerational dimensions of university engagement, positioning universities as actors that actively contribute to social cohesion, inclusion and learning across the lifespan.

Mark (2018) situates the third mission within the development of the Age-Friendly University movement, which reconceptualises universities as inclusive spaces that foster participation, learning and well-being among adults. From this perspective, the societal role of the university extends beyond serving external stakeholders to actively constructing “bridges between generations” and facilitating social connection and lifelong learning across age groups (Mark, 2018). The third mission thus becomes closely linked to widening participation and lifelong learning, challenging conventional assumptions regarding both the target populations of higher education and the temporal boundaries of learning. Engagement is framed not as a unidirectional service provided by universities, but as a reciprocal and co-creative relationship between higher education institutions and their communities.

A similarly relational perspective is evident in the work of Netshandama and Nevhu (2021), who emphasise the importance of intergenerational learning spaces within higher education curricula. They critique traditional curricular structures for marginalising community-based and intergenerational forms of knowledge and argue that meaningful engagement requires a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge is produced, shared and valued. In this view, intergenerational learning is not an optional extension of academic practice, but a powerful educational approach for addressing social fragmentation, inequality and exclusion (Netshandama & Nevhu, 2021). Accordingly, the third mission is conceptualised as a mechanism for social connection and mutual learning, rather than as a one-directional transfer of expertise from universities to society.

A qualitative research methodology was employed for this study, using semi-structured interviews. Qualitative research seeks to reveal the entirety of the phenomenon under investigation within its natural context, therefore, the field of qualitative inquiry is often everyday life, encompassing diverse forms of activity and social interactions. The focus of the study is placed on participants’ perspectives, subjective understandings and experiences, and everyday contexts. (Gaižauskaitė & Valavičienė, 2016; Flick, 2014). Ten interviews were conducted with representatives of Lithuanian state universities. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analysed. In accordance with ethical principles, the research participants were coded to ensure anonymity. The codes were created using the abbreviation of the research participant–informant (LTU) and a sequential number reflecting the order of analysis (e.g., LTU-1, LTU-2, LTU-3, LTU-4). The transcribed texts were read and analysed multiple times. Data analysis followed the qualitative data analysis principles proposed by Dahlgren and Fallsberg (1991): • Familiarisation – the transcribed texts were read repeatedly by each researcher independently in order to gain an overall understanding of the collected data. • Compilation – the most significant elements of each participant’s responses were identified, focusing on similarities and differences across the selected excerpts. • Reduction – efforts were made to distil the core meaning of each response. • Grouping – similar responses describing the phenomenon were clustered into groups, and preliminary categories were identified. • Preliminary comparison of categories – the boundaries of the categories were defined and an assessment was made as to whether the preliminary categories accurately reflected the participants’ experiences. • Naming – based on their internal characteristics and defining features, the essence of each category was articulated and appropriate category names were assigned. • Contrastive comparison – by highlighting the distinctive features of each category, a final category structure was developed, grounded in the relationships and hierarchy among categories. Research ethics. The study was conducted in accordance with fundamental ethical principles. Participants’ safety and confidentiality were ensured throughout the research process. Interviews were recorded only with the informed consent of the participants. Each participant was provided with comprehensive information about the study, including its purpose, the researchers involved, the research procedures, the intended use of the research data, participants’ rights and their option to withdraw from the study at any time, the duration and course of the study, and an explanation of the ethical principles guiding the research.

The analysis of the interview data reveals that universities primarily conceptualise their third mission through a broad educational mandate centred on the creation of knowledge and its return to society. Respondents emphasise both formalised knowledge transfer mechanisms and the provision of practical skills, highlighting the mobility of knowledge between academia and the public sphere. At the same time, the third mission is also articulated as a space for individual self-realisation, extending the educational function of universities towards personal and professional empowerment. The third mission is framed as a systemic layer of lifelong learning infrastructure that encompasses both internal institutional mechanisms and externally accessible learning formats. Lifelong Learning Centres emerge as a central structural element in this process, addressing the professional development of university staff alongside the educational needs of wider society. Strategic integration of the third mission is further reinforced through the use of explicit indicators and performance measures. In addition, universities highlight the expansion of open-access learning opportunities, including non-formal courses and programmes designed to reach learners beyond traditional higher education pathways. Overall, the findings indicate that respondents perceive the third mission as an activity that goes beyond the traditional functions of higher education—namely, teaching and research—and as one that is oriented towards broader societal impact. The third mission is understood as a responsibility to educate society in a comprehensive sense, promote social inclusion, and create opportunities for diverse social groups to participate in learning, cultural and social activities. Research participants consistently stress that the third mission is equal in importance to studies and research and is increasingly becoming a strategically significant dimension of university activity.

Dahlgren, L.-O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8(4), 150–15 Del Gottardo E. (2014). La terza missione come creazione di valore pubblico. Attività conto terzi: lavorare con le competenze non formali e informali. In: Formica C. a cura di, Terza Missione. Parametro di qualità del sistema universitario (pp. 109- 130), Napoli: Giapeto. Del Gottardo E., Rossiello C. M. (2022). Terza missione e innovazione sociale: lo spin-off universitario “Io faccio futuro”. In Pavone M. et al. (Eds.). Un ponte tra l’Università e mondo del lavoro per l’inclusione e la vita indipendente (pp. 220- 233). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 1, 3-18. framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 123 (C), 229–239. Gaižauskaitė, I., & Valavičienė, N. (2016). Socialinių tyrimų metodai: kokybinis interviu: vadovėlis. Vilnius: registrų centras. Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A., Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 261-278. Goddard, J., Vallance, P., 2013. The University and the City. Routledge. Görason B., Maharajh R., Schmoch U. (2009). New activities of universities in transfer and extension: Multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36: 157. DOI: 10.3152/030234209X406863 Haj Taieb, S. (2024). Measuring the third mission of European Universities: A systematic literature review. Society and Economy, 46(2), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.030 Mark, R. (2018). Promoting age friendly universities which are sustainable and open to all: a new challenge for the academy?. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 20(2), 169-183. Netshandama, V.O. & Nevhu, N.D. (2021). Creating intergenerational learning spaces: A collaboration between UNIVEN Community Engagement Programme and Dzomo la Mupo. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 9(2)DOI:10.14426/cristal.v9i2.462 Secundo, G., Elena Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž., Leitner, K.H., (2017). An intellectual capital Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K.B., Doll, C.N.H., Kraines, S.B., (2014). Beyond the third mission: exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci. Public Policy 41 (2), 151–179. Vorley, T., Nelles, J., 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the academy: institutional development of and beyond the third mission. High. Educ. Manag. Policy 20 (3), 1–17.