View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises
Language: English
Authors: Pavlin, Samo
Source: European Journal of Education. Mar 2016 51(1):25-39.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: School Business Relationship, Universities, Business, Educational Cooperation, Research and Development, Educational Mobility, Student Mobility, Faculty Mobility, Curriculum Development, Lifelong Learning, Foreign Countries, Models, Educational Innovation, Educational Policy, Employment Potential, College Graduates, Skill Development, Training, Competence
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12163
ISSN: 0141-8211
Abstract: This article analyses enterprises' engagement in university-business cooperation (UBC) activities: research and development, mobility of academics and students, curriculum development and lifelong learning. It first provides an introductory overview of university-business cooperation policy. It then presents a selection of UBC models, elements and processes that help to develop this area. In the second part, it introduces a UBC survey among enterprises in various European countries. With the survey, it first conceptualises an own research approach and, on this basis, studies the relations between UBC approaches and the processes, drivers, barriers, organisational characteristics and modes of cooperation. It explores which are the most practised UBC modes and the most important determinants. One of the key findings revealed that companies' engagement in innovation departments supported all five modes of UBC under investigation. Other findings of the article suggest that national and European policies cannot uniformly address the development of various UBC modes. There are substantial differences between teaching- and research-related activities. Integrating these two areas represents one of the biggest challenges with regard to orientating HE towards the world of work. It is related to the agreement on employers' role in the overall development of graduates' competencies and also on the future of academic teaching from the perspective of practical training.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1091355
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHczU5q4ZSK9zjggwCqDly7AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA83Epe1FmuCIJ0PMQIBEICBm_TCtwMhsgw7jd0ilujouTFK7kZZrzpMTIzsmNcaAP1o1YFTtyl1jDAbo8uMGVqib7C6L7XGAc9T9k5DElxf6n0BvmkJeNoyA8c3FTDiuoO3BolmAdTH6fXY7qV5QZtV3oqoXjskQM8fP3UvtRuOd_QDIED5fZSTMmvTU7BaV0BXa1VHpykay5FP6qhBZ8jj99UcxDYzIKueLreB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0113138245;eje01mar.16;2018Jun28.13:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0113138245-1">Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises. </title> <p>This article analyses enterprises’ engagement in university‐business cooperation (UBC) activities: research and development, mobility of academics and students, curriculum development and lifelong learning. It first provides an introductory overview of university‐business cooperation policy. It then presents a selection of UBC models, elements and processes that help to develop this area. In the second part, it introduces a UBC survey among enterprises in various European countries. With the survey, it first conceptualises an own research approach and, on this basis, studies the relations between UBC approaches and the processes, drivers, barriers, organisational characteristics and modes of cooperation. It explores which are the most practised UBC modes and the most important determinants. One of the key findings revealed that companies’ engagement in innovation departments supported all five modes of UBC under investigation. Other findings of the article suggest that national and European policies cannot uniformly address the development of various UBC modes. There are substantial differences between teaching‐ and research‐related activities. Integrating these two areas represents one of the biggest challenges with regard to orientating HE towards the world of work. It is related to the agreement on employers’ role in the overall development of graduates’ competencies and also on the future of academic teaching from the perspective of practical training.</p> <p>university‐business cooperation; employability; higher education; higher education graduates; competencies</p> <p>In the last few years, students, employers and the general public have been increasingly expecting higher education institutions (HEIs) to consider the professional relevance of their study programmes and its impact on the employability of graduates. One key activity from the policy perspective that is anticipated to contribute to this goal is university‐business cooperation (UBC). This is not a new topic (Stankiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>] ; Jones‐Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>] ). In the last few decades, UBC has been described as ‘national innovation systems’ (Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>] ), a ‘new mode of knowledge production’ (Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>] ), the ‘entrepreneurial university’ (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>] ), (inter)national innovation systems (Freeman, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>] ; Lundvall, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>] ; Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>] ) and ‘the triple helix model’ (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>] ; Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>] ). Many of these concepts build on the assumption that UBC contributes to teaching and learning improvements by supporting graduates’ careers. Furthermore, on the basis of a large‐scale survey of over 43,000 higher education graduates, the HEGESCO projects (Allen et al, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>] ) found evidence that career success depended on the ties between HEIs and the world of work. Graduates in programmes that encourage relevant work experiences, foster students’ motives and talents, and alert employers about what they could expect from HE graduates have been more successful in the labour market (Allen et al., 2011). UBC takes on several forms, but the most important are related to university science parks, the entrepreneurship of students, or students’ research activities connected to the business world (Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>] , p. 23–24). They have recently been perceived as a developmental necessity of HEIs. Some argue that they are appearing as a response to demographic and global changes (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>] ), the re‐emerged centrality of learning at work (Wenger et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref14">50</reflink>] ; Pawlowsky, 2002), occupational de‐professionalisation (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>] ), the repositioning of qualifications (Young, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>] ) or the emergence of massive open online courses (Perna et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref17">44</reflink>] ). Other scholars are more critical (e.g. Hackett, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>] ). They fear that UBC may lead to the trivialisation of disciplinary areas (Becher, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>] ) and changes in the relationship between research and teaching (Elton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>] ) which relate to the proletarisation and hybridisation of academic roles (Henkel, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>] ). Developments and changes in HEIs also have important implications for the future developments of the citizenship régime (Deželan, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The modes and perspectives of UBC encompass various forms of research and development, the mobility of students, academics and employees, curricular cooperation or adult learning. The nature of UBC modes depends on several external and institutional factors as well as disciplinary particularities in terms of the academic tradition of teaching and learning towards practice. Following Bekkers and Freitas ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>] ), the determination of UBC channels is based more on disciplinary origin, the underlying knowledge, the characteristics of researchers and the environment than sectorial particularities. Another important context is rooted in different regional and economic traditions. Tödtling and Trippl ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>] ) describe differences and arising problems of peripheral, old industrial and metropolitan regions. According to them, peripheral regions are characterised by the dominance of SMEs, a low level of innovation and diffusion of knowledge. Old industrial regions are dominated by mature industries and large firms that require technical skills. Fragmented metropolitan regions have diversified industries and services but lack knowledge‐based clusters and have insufficiently‐developed links with industry. In the context of disciplinary and regional differences, researchers have recently been analysing some traditional beliefs such as: i) traditional universities are less supportive of UBC than non‐traditional ones; ii) larger companies are more in favour of UBC than small companies; iii) hard sciences show greater support for cooperation than soft sciences, etc.</p> <p>In the next section, this article first offers an overview of strategic UBC policy issues. Second, it systemises holistic UBC models, elements and processes. Third, based on a survey of enterprises in various European countries, it provides evidence concerning the following two questions: from the perspective of enterprises, which are the most practised UBC modes and their determinants? and, which group of factors determines a particular UBC mode? On this basis, it discusses how one should strategically develop a specific UBC mode.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-2">Some Strategic Considerations on University‐Business Cooperation Policies</hd> <p>UBC has been rediscovered in Europe in the context of an economic crisis, high youth unemployment in several EU countries, skill mismatches and the little use of the knowledge‐transfer system. The topic has attracted attention at several levels (Borrell‐Damian et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>] , p. 9): At the level of universities themselves with the development of the so‐called third mission of universities; at the policy level through new initiatives; at regional, national and European level to foster innovation and job creation through research and training; and last but not least, in the political discourse and debate on how to improve European competitiveness in the global economy.These issues are contextualised by policy approaches to adapt institutional diversity to the Bologna system, the development of entrepreneurship, the search for talents, newer ways of measuring and recognising learning outcomes, offering support to start ups and spin offs, implementing an HE‐based dual system in some European countries and raising awareness of UBC benefits at the national and European levels in order to ‘modernise HEIs’ so as to become a more active driver of innovation (Allison et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>] ). As the European Commission ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>] , p. 7) stated almost a decade ago: One important problem is how to make better use of publicly funded R&D… . This is largely due to a less systematic and professional management of knowledge and intellectual property by European universities. Moreover, efficient knowledge transfer in European research institutions is hindered by a range of factors, including: cultural differences between the business and science communities; lack of incentives; legal barriers; and fragmented markets for knowledge and technology. All of these factors adversely affect European growth and jobs creation.On these bases, policymakers started to monitor the conditions, recommendations and support for UBC. Changes, however, take time and resources. UBC processes are rooted in cultural differences and complex industrial relations, including complex links between education, labour market and employment protection legislation (Hall & Soskice, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>] ). UBC is primarily emerging organically bottom up from the local environment (Lundvall, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>] ; Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>] ; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>] ; Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>] ). Tödtling and Trippl ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref34">49</reflink>] ) provided an overview of innovation policy approaches that contextualised UBC according to the type of region (peripheral, old industry and fragmented metropolitan). They state that the type of region determines the strategic orientation of the regional economy, as well as the innovation strategy and development of regional clusters. These strategies have an impact on the positioning of universities and other knowledge providers in terms of knowledge specialisations related to regional needs, setting up new university departments or striving for a global ranking (ibid.).</p> <p>The framework for the development of UBC policy has largely been influenced by the concept of ‘the new mode of knowledge production’ as elaborated by Gibbons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>] ). It describes changes in knowledge use in terms of sectorial, social and disciplinary determination. As a result, ‘imperatively at the policy dimension, the new mode suggests that innovation policy, rather than science policy, is a new norm for institutionalizing knowledge production processes’ (Amir & Nugroho, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>] , p. 118). In line with this, the triple helix model (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>] ) offers guidelines to analyse the complex relations in the innovation process. It was rapidly adopted in developed countries (Amir & Nugroho, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>] , p. 119): … and became a policy norm to advancing science and technology for knowledge‐based economic development…. The framework was then translated in practice into entrepreneurial environment with business‐friendly regulatory framework, profit‐oriented investments, and so‐called ‘world‐class’ universities.In the last decade, driven by the emergence of high youth unemployment in several European countries, policymakers have become more interested in how UBC contributes to graduates’ employability (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref39">41</reflink>] ; Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>] ). Since, in many cases, both policymakers and HE professionals lack holistic empirical evidence on graduates’ transition to the labour market, they believe that an improvement in graduates’ employability is related to internationalisation, internships, problem‐based learning and learning outcomes approaches (DEHEMS project, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>] ‐). In general terms, these processes can be perceived to be in line with several key areas of UBC. However, the problem of how particular UBC processes support graduate employment is far more complex. The DEHEMS project ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>] ‐), for example, identified several career success factors (job satisfaction, a graduate's match between acquired and required competencies, career developmental opportunities, job security, work autonomy and work‐life balance) and influencing factors (previous education experience, type of study, programme characteristics, teaching modes, graduates’ behaviour during their study period, spatial mobility and work experience during and after graduation, characteristics of the job and employer and country of origin). The relationship between particular career success factors and their determinants depends mainly on country and disciplinary specifics. This means that policymakers face great challenges in providing uniform recommendations for strengthening UBC relations. However, society continues to call for a clarification of UBC and employability relations. At the general level, the DEHEMS consortium found that employers, trade unions and students were looking for hard evidence in HEI governance and policies. ‘They want these results to become broadly available, and integrated into HE systems in a transparent way’ and in future expect a formal role for evidence‐based developments in HE (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>] , p. 584). In order to achieve this, stronger collaboration between various UBC actors is expected which should be based on trustful relationships between stakeholders, institutional leadership in promoting and supporting collaborative research, the relevance of research topics for all partners and the sustainability of public funding (Borrell‐Damian et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>] , p. 40).</p> <p>In this context, policy expectations concerning the future role of HEIs reach far beyond teaching activities. European universities are increasingly expected to become key actors in national innovation systems and the developers of entrepreneurship (Allison et al., 2013; 2014). If UBC were to penetrate the HE system too rapidly, sceptics would worry about the de‐professionalisation of academics, the segmentation and trivialisation of disciplinary areas, polarised relations between research and teaching, and commercialised research and teaching (Elton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>] ; Becher, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>] ; Henkel, 2009). In contrast, supporters of the convergence between universities and industry claim that universities need to modernise and become more entrepreneurial in order to retain their legitimate claim to public funding and resolve problems of public interest in the globalised world. Positions on the extent of the coming changes largely depend on one's particular interest. In the HEGESCO project, for example, almost every other employer saw the practical orientation of study programmes as one of the most obvious developmental trends, yet this was only listed by one out of ten academics (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>] , p. 65).</p> <p>The next section presents the variety of UBC approaches. It outlines different possibilities for studying UBC and thereby also the background of the approach that is used later in the article to survey enterprises’ experiences with UBC.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-3">From a Variety of Models towards a Framework to Explore Enterprises’ Perspectives on ...</hd> <p>In the last few decades, researchers have developed several theoretical and empirical models that study UBC. To understand policy perspectives and their limitations it is essential to know their variety. Most follow the logic of input‐process‐output principles with a strong focus on the drivers and barriers that facilitate UBC. Mora‐Valentin and Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref48">36</reflink>] , p. 369) describe the differences in UBC linear models between research where the ‘organization simultaneously pushes (university‐push) and the company pulls (industry‐pull)’. They are different from interactive models (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>] ; Lundvall, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>] ). The key question with Lundvall's knowledge cycle (2001) relates to the role of education, research and business in the knowledge cycle. Lundvall assumes that it is the congruity of the knowledge cycle during the creation, dissemination and application of knowledge that leads to the best learning results. Similar questions at the individual and organisational level are also raised in the model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>] ). Their model of the knowledge spiral focuses on the quantity and quality of learning and on the integration of learning in work. In this context, questions emerge regarding the extent to which universities should be business‐oriented, the extent to which industries should conduct their own research or the role of government in supporting these connections (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>] ). Crespi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>] , p. 65) found evidence in the UK that increasing the incentives for academics to patent and seek financial return may not be desirable above a certain level… as they publish less and interact less intensively with companies via other channels.</p> <p>In a large‐scale survey of over 4,000 HEIs, Davey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>] ) explored how eight pillars of UBC were used by academics and what determined these cooperation aspects. They found a strong effect of factors that were classified as action, motives, drivers and barriers. Like Lam ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>] ), they found that beliefs, motives and past experiences held key implications for UBC modes and outcomes. Related to this, De Fuentes and Dutrénit ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>] ) systemised traditional questions such as: i) why do research organisations and enterprises engage in collaboration?; ii) what are the main channels of interactions (e.g. publications, R&D projects and consultancy, property rights etc.)?; and iii) what are the main benefits perceived by firms (e.g. better capabilities) or researchers (e.g. intellectual or economic)? In a similar vein, Arvanitis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>] , p. 1869) identified several factors that explained UBC: motives (access to industrial knowledge; access to additional resources; institutional or organisational motives; pursuing greater research efficiency – cost and time savings; access to specialised technology), obstacles (the deficiencies of firms; different interests and attitudes to research, etc.), the allocation of university funds, the size of a faculty or university, the type of scientific field, and external funds. Regarding this, Santoro and Chakrabarti ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref58">46</reflink>] ) stressed that small firms were usually more concerned with survival and therefore engaged in UBC that provided immediate solutions to the critical issues of their core business.</p> <p>Another model was proposed by Bozeman et al. (2012) who put forward two main elements of UBC: i) research collaboration attributes; and ii) outputs and impacts. Research collaboration attributes are related to collaborators’ personal characteristics, such as gender, race or national origin, human capital (e.g. qualification or social network) and career stage; collaboration process (e.g. meetings, management, etc.) and the composition of areas and roles; and organisational attributes, which are related to the number of actors, departments or resources, as well as external regulations. The second element – outputs and impacts – is grouped by knowledge type that follows more of a public policy context and a property focus that is more market‐oriented.</p> <p>A different matrix model focusing on innovation development has been proposed by Rossi ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>] ). She differentiates cooperation on the axis between: i) high knowledge complexity and uncertainty and low knowledge complexity with low uncertainty; and ii) high and low knowledge appropriability. The matrix indicates four types of UBC: a) publicly‐funded cooperation with open dissemination (low knowledge appropriability and complexity); b) research with only marginal university involvement (high knowledge appropriability and low knowledge complexity); c) university research funded by industry (high knowledge appropriability and complexity); and d) joint university‐business consortium projects (high knowledge complexity and low appropriability). According to the author, these differences greatly impact on intellectual property protection, the number of industry partners, the nature of the outcomes (publications or products) and the funding sources. Similar typologies and approaches have been proposed by Perkmann et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref60">43</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Based on a comprehensive dataset on knowledge interactions between universities and enterprises in Austria, Schartinger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref61">47</reflink>] ) studied the sectorial pattern of various types of knowledge interactions and their determinants. The observed knowledge interactions covered various segments such as the employment of graduates by an organisation, new firm formation by university members, joint publications, informal communications, joint supervision of PhD and Master's theses, licensing, etc. The results show that the interactions are based on a large set of factors rather than on unified sectorial patterns. This is assumed because (ibid., p. 306): i) ‘there are different degrees of technological proximity between a certain field of science and sectors’; ii) ‘the intensity and types of performed R&D and the associated types of innovation processes differ among the sectors of economic activity’; and iii) ‘there is a division of labour within university research with respect to applicability and R&D activities with an orientation towards industry’.</p> <p>A comprehensive systematic review of UBC has been proposed by Ankrah and Al Tabbaa ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>] ). They identified six components that map UBC. The first relates to the organisational forms that comprise the informal and formal relations of the agents involved in UBC, external third‐party units, agreements and focused structures from association contracts to incubation centres and technology parks. The second encompasses the drivers or motives for cooperation that are different for universities and industry. Universities are more motivated by the publication of papers, whilst business is more motivated by shortening technological cycles and business growth. Differences are compared according to several factors, such as necessity, reciprocity or efficiency. The third describes the formation process that is contained in five stages, from partner identification to the establishment of contact, partner selection, negotiation and signing of the agreement. The fourth relates to activities during UBC, such as meetings, communication modes, training, mobility or employment. The fifth is represented by factors that facilitate UBC and include funding, incentives for cooperation or the legal framework. The sixth embraces the outcomes of UBC, such as revenue, product patents, etc. The authors believe that all six have a relationship with the others. The formation phase leads to organisational forms that generate operational activities that result in outcomes. The drivers impact on all the other components.</p> <p>As one can see, the plurality of UBC models and approaches offers various entry points to survey UBC and the development of related policies. The approach offered by Etzkowitz ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>] ) or Lundvall (2001) raises strategic conceptual questions about the (dis)integration of universities and business. Some explore the relationship between individual collaborator and organisation characteristics (Bozeman et al., 2012). Others focus on disciplinary differences and similarities (Schartinger et al., 2001). Another considers research outputs (Rossi, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref64">45</reflink>] ; Perkmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>] ). More holistic approaches, such as those presented by Davey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>] b) or Fuentes and Dutrénit (2012) study the determinants of UBC cooperation modes and outputs. Some models study the perception of universities, whilst others concentrate on enterprises. This plurality of approaches suggests that it is difficult to expect that one single model will shed light on most UBC components.</p> <p>In the next section, we focus on the relations between UBC modes (e.g. research and development, mobility of students and teachers, etc.), drivers, barriers and organisational characteristics. Here, to a certain extent, we follow the holistic framework proposed by Davey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref67">14</reflink>] ) or Fuentes and Dutrénit (2012) because it addresses the perspectives of all UBC stakeholders.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-4">Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Enterprises and Universities – Selected ...</hd> <hd id="AN0113138245-5">Methodological Approach</hd> <p>In the empirical part of this article, we first explore the key dimensions of UBC elements and processes and, second, what determines a particular UBC mode. The results are then placed in the context of UBC policy developments. The analysis is based on the survey of the EMCOSU project ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>] ‐) conducted between November 2013 and June 2014 where an international consortium conducted a survey among 397 enterprises in Bulgaria (98 enterprises), Hungary (<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref69">75</reflink>), Poland (<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref70">70</reflink>), Slovenia (<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref71">80</reflink>), and Spain (<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref72">74</reflink>) and in 89 enterprises from some other European or neighbouring regions (mainly the central EU region, Italy, Scandinavia, Russia and Croatia). Respondents within each company were managers who were most closely associated with UBC, one‐third of whom came from the human resources department. The selection of enterprises in each country sample considered the size of the companies, the sectorial relevance for UBC, the technology level, the geographical scope of operations and the extent of UBC. About half of the sample included SMEs, followed by large and micro companies. The selection was based on the sector that was most relevant for UBC (e.g. information and communication technologies, other technology sectors, energy, agriculture etc.). Proportions between industry and services were considered. The survey employed a non‐probability sampling, whilst implementing the principles of the quota, purposive and convenience sampling approaches (Uprichard, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref73">52</reflink>] ). Even though the results are not statistically significant for countries or particular EU regions, the survey helps to analyse the relations between selected UBC elements and processes.</p> <p>In the analytical part of the article, we first explore the most important dimensions of UBC elements and processes in terms of UBC modes, structures and processes, drivers, barriers and outcomes. Second, the key dimensions of UBC elements and processes are identified, using a factor analysis (principal axis factoring). These provide a more comprehensive picture of the relationship between UBC elements and processes than would be possible in the case of particular items.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-6">Key Dimensions of UBC Elements and Processes</hd> <p>The results of the analysis show that employers consider the mobility of students in terms of traineeships and direct recruitment, and R&D as the most important UBC modes. Bienkowska and Klofsten ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>] ) illustrate how mobility is important for the development of academic enterpreneurship. The least important activity is the mobility of academics. In the analysis, we identified two dimensions of UBC modes (factors). The first relates to research and mobility (the items research and development, mobility of academics and mobility of students) and the second to the teaching activity (curriculum development and delivery and adult education, training and short courses). Apparently, employers experience differences between the pedagogical part provided by the HE institution on the one hand and the R&D, student recruitments and lectures of academics in companies on the other.</p> <p>When looking at structures and approaches, the most important aspect is the participation of business people in study, teaching and research activities, followed by cooperation with an HEI's career office. The least important is the participation of academics in company boards. The analysis revealed three dimensions related to UBC approaches: supporting the development of student competencies and careers (participation in the activities of alumni networks, cooperation with HEIs’ career offices and participation in study, teaching and research activities), strategic managerial cooperation (participation of academics in company boards and of business people in HEI boards) and participation in innovation departments (cooperation with institutes focused on UBC and cooperation with incubators for the development of new businesses). In the case of structures and approaches, a duality can again be detected between teaching and other activities.</p> <p>The most important UBC drivers are mutual trust and commitment, followed by shared motives. The least important are financial resources for working with an HEI and HEI flexibility. We identified two dimensions in the analysis: intrinsic company‐related elements (shared motives, access to HEIs’ R&D facilities, geographical distance, mutual trust and commitment, financial resources for working with an HEI and a prior relationship with HEIs) and external HE‐related elements (HEIs’ flexibility and their interest in accessing practical knowledge). The most important barrier for enterprises is bureaucracy, followed by the different time horizons between an HEI and business. Interestingly, the financial crisis did not seem to have a great impact on UBC. Amongst the barriers, three dimensions were identified: bureaucracy (bureaucracy within or outside the HEIs and the confidentiality of the results), resource‐related barriers (difficulty in finding the appropriate persons within HEIs, limited ability to transfer knowledge, and the current financial crisis) and personal‐related barriers (different modes of communication and language between HEIs and business, time horizons between HEIs and business and motivations and values between HEIs and business).</p> <p>The analysis revealed that the most important UBC outcome was the development of competencies that are relevant for the labour market, followed by better innovative capacities of the enterprise. The performance of businesses was identified as the least important dimension. Amongst the variables related to UBC outcomes, two dimensions were identified: the development of competencies that are relevant for the labour market, and various other knowledge and innovation‐related outcomes (performance of business, academics’ knowledge, practical skills of professionals from organisations, innovative capacities of the enterprise and regional development and social cohesion).</p> <p>When combined with the results of the survey conducted by Davey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>] ), the EMCOSU survey (2015‐) also enables a simple comparison of the elements and processes listed above. It reveals that:</p> <p>i) the perceived importance of UBC cooperation modes is similar between employers and universities (e.g. student mobility and R&D were perceived as the most important cooperation modes); the perceived importance of UBC cooperation modes is similar between employers and universities (e.g. student mobility and R&D were perceived as the most important cooperation modes);</p> <p>ii) there is a fairly large difference in the perception of the structures and approaches (e.g. employers perceive their own participation in study, teaching and research activities as the key approach to UBC, while, for HE representatives, this is only ranked as the fourth element – the first was cooperation with research offices); there is a fairly large difference in the perception of the structures and approaches (e.g. employers perceive their own participation in study, teaching and research activities as the key approach to UBC, while, for HE representatives, this is only ranked as the fourth element – the first was cooperation with research offices);</p> <p>iii) both actors perceive UBC drivers in a very similar way (for both groups the most important drivers of UBC are mutual trust and commitment and shared motives); both actors perceive UBC drivers in a very similar way (for both groups the most important drivers of UBC are mutual trust and commitment and shared motives);</p> <p>iv) there are relatively large differences in the perception of UBC barriers (e.g. employers perceive bureaucracy that is within or outside the HEIs as the most important obstacle, whilst the biggest obstacle for HEIs is the different time horizons); and there are relatively large differences in the perception of UBC barriers (e.g. employers perceive bureaucracy that is within or outside the HEIs as the most important obstacle, whilst the biggest obstacle for HEIs is the different time horizons); and</p> <p>v) both enterprises and universities consider the development of competencies as the most important UBC outcome. both enterprises and universities consider the development of competencies as the most important UBC outcome.</p> <p>Comparing the differences and similarities of UBC between HEIs and employers poses a big methodological challenge that would require stand‐alone research with additional resources. Yet the expected results would be very important for policy development, as they would reveal the main tensions and problematic areas in the cooperation between both key stakeholders.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-7">Key Determinants and Modes of University‐Business Cooperation</hd> <p>In the second step of the analysis, we explored how the identified group of factors (structures and approaches, drivers, barriers and organisational characteristics) determined five UBC modes. The results of the linear regression analysis are presented in Table [NaN] show that UBC factors determine particular modes relatively differently. This is somewhat surprising since, based on the close connectivity between various UBC modes in theory, one would expect a greater similarity of effects. One can generally say that the extent of enterprises’ engagement in structures and approaches and the facilitation of UBC drivers determine UBC cooperation modes to a greater degree than barriers and organisational characteristics.</p> <p>Determinants of the key UBC modes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Research and Development</th><th align="center">Mobility of Academics</th><th align="center">Mobility of Students</th><th align="center">Curriculum Development</th><th align="center">Lifelong Learning</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Structures and Approaches</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">Development of Competencies and Careers</td><td align="char" char=".">−.087</td><td align="char" char=".">−.002</td><td align="char" char=".">.005</td><td align="char" char=".">.505</td><td align="char" char=".">.496</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strategic Managerial Cooperation</td><td align="char" char=".">.165</td><td align="char" char=".">.225</td><td align="char" char=".">.059</td><td align="char" char=".">.004</td><td align="char" char=".">−.020</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Participation in Innovation Departments</td><td align="char" char=".">.229</td><td align="char" char=".">.291</td><td align="char" char=".">.138**</td><td align="char" char=".">.136</td><td align="char" char=".">.120**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">UBC Drivers</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">Intrinsic and company related</td><td align="char" char=".">.319</td><td align="char" char=".">.188**</td><td align="char" char=".">.021</td><td align="char" char=".">.116*</td><td align="char" char=".">.064</td></tr><tr><td align="left">External HE related</td><td align="char" char=".">−.058</td><td align="char" char=".">−.033</td><td align="char" char=".">.349</td><td align="char" char=".">−.081</td><td align="char" char=".">−.155**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">UBC Barriers</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">Barriers related to bureaucracy</td><td align="char" char=".">.046</td><td align="char" char=".">.008</td><td align="char" char=".">−.017</td><td align="char" char=".">.028</td><td align="char" char=".">.119*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Resources related barriers</td><td align="char" char=".">−.054</td><td align="char" char=".">−.013</td><td align="char" char=".">−.025</td><td align="char" char=".">−.014</td><td align="char" char=".">.012</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Barriers related to individual</td><td align="char" char=".">.030</td><td align="char" char=".">−.039</td><td align="char" char=".">.027</td><td align="char" char=".">−.027</td><td align="char" char=".">−.113**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Organisational Characteristics</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">Industry sector</td><td align="char" char=".">.180</td><td align="char" char=".">.080</td><td align="char" char=".">−.035</td><td align="char" char=".">.040</td><td align="char" char=".">−.071</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of Employees</td><td align="char" char=".">−.012</td><td align="char" char=".">.003</td><td align="char" char=".">.107**</td><td align="char" char=".">.096**</td><td align="char" char=".">.026</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Share of HE graduates as employees</td><td align="char" char=".">.042</td><td align="char" char=".">−.071</td><td align="char" char=".">.004</td><td align="char" char=".">.036</td><td align="char" char=".">.020</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of researchers</td><td align="char" char=".">.155</td><td align="char" char=".">.024</td><td align="char" char=".">.030</td><td align="char" char=".">.007</td><td align="char" char=".">−.024</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R Square</td><td align="char" char=".">.279</td><td align="char" char=".">.227</td><td align="char" char=".">0.217</td><td align="char" char=".">.433</td><td align="char" char=".">.360</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1  = p<0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.10. Data source: see the EMCOSU project research group (2014/2015).</p> <p>UBC cooperation in the area of R&D is mainly determined by the extent of strategic managerial cooperation and participation in innovation departments. Surprisingly, approaches that support the development of student competencies and careers, such as participation in the activities of alumni networks, career offices, and teaching and research do not have an impact on companies’ cooperation in the area of R&D. Drivers that determine UBC in this area are intrinsic and related to the company (shared motives with an HEI, mutual trust). In the eyes of enterprises, those drivers related to HEIs do not matter. Further on, the analysis revealed that three groups of barriers (bureaucracy, resource‐related barriers, and barriers related to individuals) had no impact on UBC in the area of R&D. Expectedly, companies from the industry sector and those with a higher number of researchers are more engaged in this area of UBC. Results for the mobility of academics are quite similar to those for R&D. The impact of strategic managerial cooperation and participation in innovation departments is greater for this cooperation mode than in the case of R&D, although we did not find any effect of organisation characteristics.</p> <p>Determinants in the case of UBC are different in the cases of student mobility, R&D and the mobility of academics. Student mobility is chiefly determined by drivers related to HEIs and not to companies: enterprises experience that this UBC mode is determined by HEIs’ flexibility and their interest in accessing practical knowledge in companies. As expected, the results also indicate that the mobility of students is mainly related to larger firms. This is also the case with curriculum development and delivery that also include the participation of experts from the world of work in HE. As one would expect, the extent of this UBC mode is determined by enterprises’ engagement in alumni networks, career offices and participation in study and teaching and research activities. Participation in innovation departments also determines this cooperation mode, but its effect is about four times less.</p> <p>The last UBC mode under observation is lifelong learning, including adult education. Like curriculum development, this mode is determined by approaches and structures that are related to competencies development and engagement in innovation departments (the proportion between the two groups of determinants is also very similar). However, we found an indication that lifelong learning activities correlated negatively with enterprises’ experience of the flexibility of HEIs, their interest in accessing practical knowledge and to a small extent positively with bureaucracy. A possible explanation is that lifelong learning seems an alternative to other UBC modes.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-8">Conclusions</hd> <p>Recently, discussions on HE policy developments have considered two strategic questions. First, to what extent should HE adjust to labour market needs? and, second, to what extent should it integrate UBC modes and thereby become an active agent of innovation? In this article, we contributed to these questions with an analysis of a survey among employers in several European countries. Our findings suggest that employers expect HE to primarily contribute to innovation by developing graduates’ competencies. In this process, which is more closely related to providing graduates with experiences and recruitment and less closely to curricula development, they want to play an active role. Yet enterprises are less interested in involving academics in business processes.</p> <p>The results in our case reveal that both actors perceive UBC modes in a relatively similar way: student mobility and R&D are seen by both as the most important activity and the mobility of academics in terms of their training in organisations as the least important. They perceive intrinsic personal elements and skill development as the most important motives for UBC. From these results, one could assume that there was agreement that universities should not lose their traditional role of preparing professionals for lifelong careers and should not be transformed into business‐supporting units. However, enterprises and universities have quite different observations regarding their engagement in UBC processes and barriers, indicating that they need to seek a stronger consensus in terms of the strategic role of governing bodies, alumni networks, career centres and the participation of professionals in teaching activities.</p> <p>Our results show that one single policy approach cannot uniformly address the needs of the various UBC modes. Each mode is determined by different factors and to different degrees. Engagement in alumni networks and career offices and participation in study processes are, for example, relevant for the curriculum and lifelong learning cooperation activities, but have almost no impact on R&D and on the mobility of students and academics. One can assume that experts from the world of work enjoy teaching students but do not like to be taught by academics. In future, it would be necessary to learn to what extent the academics’ approach is suitable for training in companies. If the answer is positive, one should consider how to overcome the prejudices of professionals from the world of work. If the answer is negative, and the academic style of teaching cannot contribute importantly to the knowledge of professionals, then the options are either to create standards for the development of such capabilities, or to consider the more active and formal participation of practitioners in HE professional training. Developments of national qualification tools should provide some directions along these lines.</p> <p>Activities related to the participation of academics in company boards and business people in HEI boards impact on UBC in terms of research activities and the mobility of academics. Involvement in company boards has no impact on curriculum development and lifelong learning activities. Apparently, formal managerial cooperation mainly covers strategic aspects and is irrelevant for teaching activities. In this respect, we can again envisage two developmental scenarios. In the first, the main body of the HE curriculum should be governed traditionally as it is and remain separate from the world of work. Enterprises should not be engaged in HE curricular issues at the strategic level. In the second scenario, measures should be taken to motivate employers as strategic participants in curricular activities.</p> <p>The results indicate that industrial enterprises are more likely to cooperate in the area of R&D, whilst sectorial characteristics have no impact on other UBC areas. The size of a company affects student mobility and curriculum development, but is not important for research. In terms of organisational characteristics, this creates two challenges. The first is related to expanding UBC in the area of R&D to also cover non‐industrial areas. The second is to give stronger support to SMEs in the areas of traineeships, recruitment and curriculum development. Since enterprises usually engage in UBC with strategic and developmental processes which might not be directly related to their short‐term core business, this requires the involvement of different stakeholders who could also include mediator bodies such as chambers of commerce and industry. In a nutshell, the results and considerations bring us back to the following key challenges for policy development of HE and its cooperation with business. They are:</p> <p>How to agree on the role of employers in the development of graduates’ competencies? To what extent will they cooperate with universities to achieve this goal, and in what way? Will employers be able to perceive graduates’ training as a long term investment?</p> <p>To what extent will HE become practically‐oriented? What does the tension between employers and HEIs mean regarding this question?</p> <p>How can one form of UBC facilitate another? In particular, it is important to understand how informal networks gradually become concrete projects and other permanent activities.</p> <p>What are the implications of differences and similarities between enterprises, sectors and countries?</p> <p>Finally, an important finding of our analyses revealed that companies’ engagement in innovation departments supported all five modes of UBC under investigation. Clearly, incubators and related departments integrate different UBC activities. We can thus assume that measures for the creation and formalisation of these structures are some of the key developmental priorities.</p> <hd id="AN0113138245-9">Disclaimer</hd> <p>The empirical data and conceptual approach of this article are related to the EMCOSU project. To a small extent, it also builds upon findings of the REFLEX, HEGESCO and DEHEMS projects. The REFLEX, HEGESCO, DEHEMS and EMCOSU projects were funded with support from the European Commission. This paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.</p> <ref id="AN0113138245-10"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Allen, J., Pavlin, S. & Van Der Velden, R. (Eds) ( 2011 ) Competencies and Early Labour Market Careers of Higher Education Graduates in Europe ( Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Allinson, R., Giarracca, F., Jávorka, Z. & Potau, X. ( 2013 ) Strategic Partnerships for Innovation and Growth: from dialogue to partnerships. 5th University‐Business Forum Brussels, 4‐5 June 2013 ( Brussels, European Commission, DG Education and Culture ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Allinson, R., Jávorka, Z., Kovacs, H. & Potau, X. ( 2014 ) University‐Business Cooperation: driving competitiveness, employability and prosperity. 20‐21 November 2014 ( Brussels, European Commission, DG Education and Culture ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Amir, S. & Nugroho, Y. ( 2013 ) Beyond the Triple Helix: framing STS in the developmental context, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, pp. 115 – 126. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Ankrah, S., & Al‐Tabbaa, O. ( 2015 ) Universities‐industry collaboration: a systematic review, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, pp. 387 – 408. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref57" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U. & Woerter, M. ( 2008 ) University‐industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: what university scientists think about co‐operation with private enterprises, Research Policy, 37, pp. 1865 – 1883. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Becher, T. ( 1989 ) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines ( Buckingham, Open University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Bekker, R. & Freitas, I. M. B. ( 2008 ) Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter?, Research Policy, 37, pp. 1837 – 1853. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref74" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Bienkowska, D. & Klofsten, M. ( 2012 ) Creating entrepreneurial networks: academic entrepreneurship, mobility and collaboration during PhD education, Higher Education, 64, pp. 207 – 222. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref25" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Borrell‐Damian, L., Morais, R. & Smith, J. H. ( 2014 ) University‐business Collaborative Research: goals, outcomes and new assessment tools. The EUIMA Collaborative Research Project Report ( Brussels, EUA publications ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Bozeman, B., Fay, D. & Slade, C. P. ( 2013 ) Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the‐state‐of‐the‐art, Journal Technology Transfer, 38, pp. 1 – 67. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref5" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Clark, B. R. ( 1998 ) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: organizational pathways of transformation ( Emerald Group Publishing Limited ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref53" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Crespi, G., D'este, P., Fontana, R. & Geuna, A. ( 2011 ) The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer, Research Policy, 40, pp. 55 – 68. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref54" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galan Muros V. & Meerman A. ( 2011 ) The State of European University‐ Business Cooperation. Final Report ‐ Study on the Cooperation between Higher Education Institutions and Public and Private Organisations in Europe ( Science‐to‐Business Marketing Research Centre ). <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/studies/munster%5fen.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/studies/munster%5fen.pdf</ulink> (Accessed: August 2013). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref56" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>De Fuentes, C. & Dutrénit, G. ( 2012 ) Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long‐term benefit, Research Policy, 41, pp. 1666 – 1682. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref41" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>DEHEMS PROJECT ( 2015 ‐) Project DEHEMS – Network for the Development of Higher Education Management Systems ( International Consortium ). <ulink href="http://www.dehems-project.eu">http://www.dehems-project.eu</ulink> (Accessed: April 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref22" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>DeŽelan, T. ( 2012 ) In the name of the nation or/and Europe? Determinants of the Slovenian citizenship regime, Citizenship Studies, 16, pp. 413 – 429. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref20" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Elton, L. ( 1986 ) Research and teaching: symbiosis or conflict Lewis, Higher Education, 15, pp. 299 – 304. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>EMCOSU PROJECT RESEARCH GROUP ( 2014 /2015) Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Sector Organisations and Universities [data file] (Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana, Centre for Spatial Sociology [coordination], 2014. Slovenia, Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Social Science Data Archives [distribution], 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref68" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>EMCOSU PROJECT ( 2015 ‐) Project EMCOSU – Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Enterprises and Universities ( International consortium ). <ulink href="http://www.emcosu.eu">http://www.emcosu.eu</ulink> (Accessed: August 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref37" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Etzkowitz, H. ( 1996 ) From knowledge flows to the Triple Helix. The transformation of academia‐industry relations in the USA, Industry & Higher Education, 10, pp. 337 – 342. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref10" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Etzkowitz, H. ( 2008 ) The Triple Helix: university‐industry‐government innovation in action ( New York, Routledge ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref9" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>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, pp. 109 – 123. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref28" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>European Commission ( 2007 ) Communication from the Commission. Improving Knowledge Transfer between Research Institutions and Industry across Europe ( Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref15" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Evetts, J. ( 2011 ) A new professionalism? Changes and opportunities, Current Sociology, 59, pp. 406 – 422. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref6" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Freeman, C. ( 1987 ) Technology Policy and Economic Performance: lessons from Japan ( London, Pinter ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref4" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. ( 1994 ) The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies ( London, England, Sage ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref18" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Hackett, E. J. ( 2005 ) Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research, Social Studies of Science, 35, pp. 787 – 826. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref29" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. ( 2001 ) Varieties of Capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage ( Oxford, Oxford University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref21" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Henkel, M. ( 2007 ) Shifting boundaries and the academic profession, in: M. Kogan & U. Teichler (Eds) Key Challenges to the Academic Profession ( Paris and Kassel, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education ), pp. 191 – 204. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref2" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Jones‐Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E. & Pandya, D. ( 1999 ) Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office, R&D Management, 29, pp. 47 – 56. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Klofsten, M. & Jones‐Evans, D. ( 2000 ) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe – the case of Sweden and Ireland, Small Business Economics, 14, pp. 299 – 309. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref55" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Lam, A. ( 2010 ) From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university‐industry boundaries, Social Studies of Science, 40, pp. 307 – 340. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref7" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Lundvall, B.‐Å. ( 1992 ) Introduction, in B.‐Å. Lundvall (Ed) National Systems of Innovation toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning ( London, Pinter Publishers ), pp. 1 – 19. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref50" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Lundvall, B.‐Å. ( 2001 ) The learning economy: some implications for the knowledge base of health and education systems, in: OECD (Ed) Knowledge Management in the Learning Society ( Paris, OECD ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref48" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Mora‐Valentin, E. V. & Ortiz‐De‐Urbina‐Criado, M. ( 2009 ) Improving the effectiveness of academic‐business models: an analysis of obstacles in R&D activities in service industries, Service Business, 3, pp 395 – 413. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref8" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Nelson, R. R. ( 1992 ) National innovation systems: a retrospective on a study, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, pp. 347 – 374. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref3" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Nelson, R. (Ed) ( 1993 ) National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis ( New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref51" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. ( 1995 ) The Knowledge–Creating Company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation ( New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref47" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. & Svetlik, I. ( 2009 ) Future development of higher education, in: S. Pavlin (Ed) Report on the Qualitative Analysis of Higher Education Institutions and Employers in Five Countries ( International Consortium, HEGESCO project ). <ulink href="http://www.decowe.org/static/uploaded/htmlarea/finalreportshegesco/Qualitative%5fAnalysis%5fof%5fHEIs%5fand%5fEmployers%5fin%5fFive%5fCountries.pdf">http://www.decowe.org/static/uploaded/htmlarea/finalreportshegesco/Qualitative%5fAnalysis%5fof%5fHEIs%5fand%5fEmployers%5fin%5fFive%5fCountries.pdf</ulink> (Accessed: August 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref39" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. ( 2014 ) The role of higher education in supporting graduates’ early labour market careers, International Journal of Manpower, 35, pp. 576 – 590. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref13" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. & Svetlik, I. ( 2014 ) Employability of higher education graduates in Europe, International Journal of Manpower, 35, pp. 418 – 424. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref60" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Perkmann, M., King, Z. & Pavelin, S. ( 2011 ) Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry, Research Policy, 40, pp. 539 – 552. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref17" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Perna, L. W., Ruby A., Boruch, R. F, Wang, N., Scull J., Ahmad, S. & Evans, C. ( 2014 ) Moving through MOOCs: understanding the progression of users in Massive Open Online Courses, Educational Researcher, 43, pp. 421 – 432. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref59" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Rossi, F. ( 2010 ) The governance of university‐industry knowledge transfer, European Journal of Innovation Management, 13, pp. 155 – 171. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref58" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Santoro M. D. & Chakrabarti, A. K. ( 2002 ) Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1163 – 1180. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref61" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Schartinger, D., Rammera, C., Fischer M. M. & Fröhlich, J. ( 2002 ) Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants, Research Policy, 31, pp. 303 – 328. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref1" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Stankiewicz, R. ( 1986 ) Academics and Entrepreneurs: developing university‐industry relations ( London, Frances Pinter ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref24" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Tödtling, F. & Trippl, M. ( 2005 ) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach, Research Policy, 34, pp. 1203 – 1219. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref14" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Wenger, E., Mcdermott, R. A., Snyder, W. ( 2002 ) Cultivating Communities of Practice: a guide to managing knowledge ( Boston, Harvard Business School Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref12" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Wilson, T. ( 2012 ) A Review of Business–University Collaboration ( Higher Education Funding Council for England & University of Hertfordshire ). https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment%5fdata/file/32383/12-610-wilson-review-business-university-collaboration.pdf">www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment%5fdata/file/32383/12-610-wilson-review-business-university-collaboration.pdf</ulink> (Accessed: August 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref73" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Uprichard, E. ( 2011 ) Sampling: bridging probability and non‐probability designs, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, pp. 1 – 11. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref16" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Young, M. ( 2007 ) Qualifications Frameworks: some conceptual issues, European Journal of Education, 42, pp. 445 – 457. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Samo Pavlin</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1091355
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pavlin%2C+Samo%22">Pavlin, Samo</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. Mar 2016 51(1):25-39.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Business+Relationship%22">School Business Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business%22">Business</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Cooperation%22">Educational Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+and+Development%22">Research and Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Mobility%22">Educational Mobility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Mobility%22">Student Mobility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Mobility%22">Faculty Mobility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lifelong+Learning%22">Lifelong Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Potential%22">Employment Potential</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Graduates%22">College Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12163
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article analyses enterprises' engagement in university-business cooperation (UBC) activities: research and development, mobility of academics and students, curriculum development and lifelong learning. It first provides an introductory overview of university-business cooperation policy. It then presents a selection of UBC models, elements and processes that help to develop this area. In the second part, it introduces a UBC survey among enterprises in various European countries. With the survey, it first conceptualises an own research approach and, on this basis, studies the relations between UBC approaches and the processes, drivers, barriers, organisational characteristics and modes of cooperation. It explores which are the most practised UBC modes and the most important determinants. One of the key findings revealed that companies' engagement in innovation departments supported all five modes of UBC under investigation. Other findings of the article suggest that national and European policies cannot uniformly address the development of various UBC modes. There are substantial differences between teaching- and research-related activities. Integrating these two areas represents one of the biggest challenges with regard to orientating HE towards the world of work. It is related to the agreement on employers' role in the overall development of graduates' competencies and also on the future of academic teaching from the perspective of practical training.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1091355
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1091355
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12163
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 25
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Business Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research and Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lifelong Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Potential
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Considering University-Business Cooperation Modes from the Perspective of Enterprises
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pavlin, Samo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1