View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What Determines Enterprises' Perceptions of Future Development in Higher Education--Strange Bedfellows?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What Determines Enterprises' Perceptions of Future Development in Higher Education--Strange Bedfellows?
Language: English
Authors: Deželan, Tomaž, Laker, Jason, Pavlin, Samo
Source: European Journal of Education. Mar 2016 51(1):107-125.
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: 19
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Entrepreneurship, Higher Education, School Business Relationship, Partnerships in Education, Employers, Stakeholders, Colleges, Skill Development, Technology Integration, Employer Attitudes, Foreign Countries
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12169
ISSN: 0141-8211
Abstract: In the last few decades, global changes such as an ever more integrated world economy, new technologies or the emergence of an international knowledge network have increasingly determined developments in European higher education. Policymakers have addressed these challenges using processes that support the practical orientation of higher education, including university-business cooperation. Because employers are becoming important stakeholders and partners in the creation of higher education policy, the future developers of higher education need to know what employers expect of future development and whether they will meet or resist those expectations when it comes to their input. In this article, we identify the areas that need to be improved upon and examine the ways in which employers' experiences with higher education determine their perceptions of it. Building on the EMCOSU (Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Sector Organisations and Universities) survey, we analysed the responses of professionals of 397 companies based in five European countries. The analysis indicated that the level at which companies participated in university-business cooperation strongly influenced their perception of the way higher education institutions should develop. To be precise, those with greater experience in university-business cooperation pressed for more strategic cooperation between universities and business, more support for the international orientation of academic institutions, and less attention to the immediate valorisation of applied research, practical orientation and short-term skill development.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1091409
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwELmyYAwKgsw9CfZ1vjkAK7AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCjjtPnr5eFGyJDJCwIBEICBm2QOy2FokLQ0Tgf0XX64bgWOiSD_oBHj2WPTI1-M3uxbYw9XOWdqUuqkmFk6Xwo7u12G6vL4zgwhB9RI4v43vZaM5RxM-U6pTIxL5MjoYrCaQi-cCv5IT1iMZdgGqZrAPj9FU_E9cBs_3_yu14ppHZ1PFfPcFe3hMC0ut-eBsyUpgmM-Ea2S4K1QoKGwd8GUGvxqu21DwOCw97tI
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0113138240;eje01mar.16;2018Jun28.13:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0113138240-1">What Determines Enterprises' Perceptions of Future Development in Higher Education - Strange Bedfellows? </title> <p>In the last few decades, global changes such as an ever more integrated world economy, new technologies or the emergence of an international knowledge network have increasingly determined developments in European higher education. Policymakers have addressed these challenges using processes that support the practical orientation of higher education, including university‐business cooperation. Because employers are becoming important stakeholders and partners in the creation of higher education policy, the future developers of higher education need to know what employers expect of future development and whether they will meet or resist those expectations when it comes to their input. In this article, we identify the areas that need to be improved upon and examine the ways in which employers’ experiences with higher education determine their perceptions of it. Building on the EMCOSU (Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Sector Organisations and Universities) survey, we analysed the responses of professionals of 397 companies based in five European countries. The analysis indicated that the level at which companies participated in university‐business cooperation strongly influenced their perception of the way higher education institutions should develop. To be precise, those with greater experience in university‐business cooperation pressed for more strategic cooperation between universities and business, more support for the international orientation of academic institutions, and less attention to the immediate valorisation of applied research, practical orientation and short‐term skill development.</p> <p>higher education; university–business cooperation; higher education reform; higher education policy; Europe</p> <p>In the last few decades, global changes have increasingly determined developments in European higher education. Altbach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>] , p. iv) defined these changes ‘as the reality shaped by an increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communications technology (ICT), the emergence of an international knowledge network, the role of the English language, and other forces beyond the control of academic institutions’. Countries such as Brazil, Russia, China and India, which, until recently, mainly competed through the use of cheap labour, are challenging traditional Western leaders in innovation and knowledge production (Friedman, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>] ), even though they face various obstacles in becoming new academic superpowers (Altbach, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] ). Similarly, professions and human resources in the Western world are experiencing deregulation, the precarity of work and the flexibility of labour markets, which is in line with a neoliberal doctrine. These phenomena have been accompanied by policies based on the knowledge‐based economy and the Lisbon Strategy (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>] ). This period was marked by the massification of higher education in which the key problem identified by policymakers related to the ‘more efficient’ flow of knowledge from higher education to the world of work (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>] ). In this setting, the challenge for higher education is to adjust the academically‐determined composition of knowledge with professional requirements.</p> <p>Policymakers have recently addressed these challenges by using two related processes that support the practical orientation of higher education. The first concerns the professional relevance of higher education in general and the problem of linking the determinants of professional success (e.g. work experience, teaching modes, learning, etc.) with the components of career success (e.g. quality of jobs, job satisfaction, skill match, etc.) (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref6">43</reflink>] ). The second refers to university–business cooperation and the problematic relationship between its modes, drivers, barriers and outcomes (Davey et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] ). Both have now moved beyond the arena of higher education. The employability discourse has been related to the labour market, particularly youth unemployment, whilst university–business cooperation has been related to key stakeholders in education and research (Kesting et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>] ), as postulated by “the triple helix model” (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Increasingly, relations between the private sector and the academic world have introduced the narratives of ‘strange bedfellows’, ‘hegemonic bargain’, ‘be careful what you wish for’, ‘from criticality to instrumentalism’, and ‘public‐private partnerships are rarely partnerships’. They have been used in the discussion on academic de‐professionalisation. Particular attention has been paid to changes in the academic profession in terms of work intensification, the hunt for projects, technocratic control over academic work, and the distinction between research and teaching (Musselin, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>] ; Krause, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>] ). Higher education professionals have become increasingly responsible for acquiring financial resources, which is reflected in the hybridisation of the tasks of administrators and academics (Whitchurch, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>] ; Musselin, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>] ). In some countries, policymakers have introduced 'performance’ indicators in higher education, which, amongst other things, measure the number of successful applications, quality and auditing measures, as well as collaboration with industry (Leisyte & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>] ). Reactions to the increasing orientation of the academic world towards the business world vary. Whilst employers and the public primarily believe that higher education should establish stronger links with enterprises, most academics still firmly support the idea of academic freedom (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>] ) and the importance of avoiding purely instrumental and financial interests. However, differences exist. According to Lam ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>] ), on the one hand, there is the traditional academic who believes that academia and industry should be distinct; on the other is the more entrepreneurial academic who believes in ‘the fundamental importance of science‐business collaboration’.</p> <p>In this context, a key policy concern is the extent to which higher education will be able to support graduates’ early careers and cooperate with business. Because employers are becoming increasingly important stakeholders and partners in the creation of higher education policy (Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>] ), the future developers of higher education will need to know what employers expect of future development and whether they will meet or resist these expectations when it comes to their input. In this article, we first identify the areas that, in the eyes of enterprises, need to be ‘modernised’. Second, we examine the ways in which employers’ existing experiences in higher education determine their perceptions of it. We assume that employers do not represent a black box and that there are great differences in their perceptions. We assume that existing university‐business practices significantly shape the future of European higher education. Indeed, ‘the more successful public entrepreneurial universities are today, the greater the chances are of them following this entrepreneurial direction in the future’ (Kwiek, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>] , p. 218).</p> <hd id="AN0113138240-2">The Context of Employers’ Idea of Future Higher Education</hd> <p>Nearly two decades ago, the beginning of the Bologna Process marked an important milestone in synchronising the ‘modernisation’ of higher education. This process can be perceived as the coordinated action of European governments, academics, non‐profit and student organisations with regard to new social demands (study massification, distance and lifelong learning, etc.), the relationship with the economy (emergence of researchers in companies and university‐business cooperation, etc.), the relationships between universities, such as the mobility of students and professors, and the relationships within universities, mainly in terms of specialisations (Zgaga, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref20">55</reflink>] , p. 15). Since then, policymakers have synchronised the system from above, whilst higher education institutions have diversified the number of their programmes in order to become competitive. Teichler ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref21">51</reflink>] , pp. 351–352), for example, questioned the implications of general policy assumptions, as follows: i) expansion of student enrolment is desirable and expansion is intertwined with diversification of higher education establishments, ii) increasing the diversity of higher education establishments is beneficial in terms of quantity, quality, relevance and efficiency of higher education, iii) diversification is multi‐dimensional, but the single most important dimension of diversity of higher education is research quality and, iv) the vertical dimension of diversification is more relevant than the horizontal dimensions. According to Altbach ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>] , p. x), the massification of higher education has reduced its quality because ‘less money is spent on each student, and the conditions of study have deteriorated’. Furthermore, there are greater differences between top universities and institutions at the bottom of the hierarchy, many countries have failed to ensure that their higher education systems were able to serve different needs and populations, the quality of the academic profession has deteriorated and the private sector has expanded. Following the Bologna Process, developments in higher education were accompanied by the concepts of new public management, globalisation, marketisation, new steering directions, funding and resource conditions, neo‐liberal ideology, competition, commodification and marketisation (Meek et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>] ). These concepts have raised questions about whether higher education institutions were becoming drivers of innovation or followers of whatever would occur in the future. Indeed, what can we expect in the future?</p> <p>In 2008, a survey of 289 executives was conducted in the academic community and the world of work in the US, Europe and the Asia‐Pacific. Most respondents reported that, as a result of university–business cooperation, technology would have an impact on the duration of courses, changes in credit systems, increases in multidisciplinarity, greater cooperation between universities, flexibilisation of the curriculum and specialisation of degrees (Economist, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>] ). Lefrere ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>] , pp. 203–204) noted that the extrapolation of the trends in recent years indicated the following: competition for work in higher education institutions, a greater commercialisation of research, pressure to develop distance‐learning tools, diversification of teaching‐focused and research‐led universities, a growing need to support graduates’ careers and enhance student satisfaction with teaching, further diversification of courses in order to accept less capable students, etc. Based on the predictions of several ‘futurists’, the author envisaged six very distinct scenarios (Lefrere, pp. 201‐202): i) the traditionalist scenario which slows mass education and marketisation and reorients them towards traditional learning; ii) the private funding of higher education institutions scenario; iii) a market‐led scenario concentrating on specialist niches; iv) a continuing professional development and lifelong learning scenario in which universities that certify courses are moved to the private sector; v) a learner‐led scenario in which learners design their studies; and vi) an informal learning scenario in which formal tertiary education disappears. Current developments fall in between these scenarios, and strong variations exist in fields of study and national particularities.</p> <p>The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref26">39</reflink>] ) provided another set of scenarios of the future development of higher education, which included the following: i) open networking based on strong internationalisation connects ‘institutions, scholars, students and with other actors such as industry. It is a model based more on collaboration than on competition’. Here, knowledge is openly available, and students have a great deal of autonomy in planning their studies via modularisation; ii) serving local communities, which presumes support for national and local developments, particularly in the search for and development of human resources; iii) new public responsibility that integrates private initiatives and benefits from foreign education markets; and iv) ‘higher education Inc.’, which presumes strong global competition and the privatisation of education. Altbach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>] , p. xx) stated that most scenarios would be affected by the current economic crisis. The implications would include significant constraints on the budgets for research, restrictions on loan programmes where they exist, pressures to establish or increase tuition fees, a slower development of new facilities and technology, all of which could be reflected in the overall deterioration of quality.</p> <p>A central theme that remains on the agenda is the question of whether European universities will retain the Humboldtian research‐teaching model According to Deem ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>] , p. 298), ‘…whilst academics remain motivated by research as well as teaching, the transformation of the European Humboldtian tradition into a post‐Humboldtian one is still far from complete and is likely to be resisted’. This is especially the case as different kinds of organisations compete for public funding and many universities try to survive the game by increasing student enrolment numbers, but are expected to become more practical in their nature. This could shift the traditional role of higher education institutions from being innovators to being facilitators of ongoing developments that are dictated by the external world. According to Teichler ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref29">50</reflink>] , p. 177), such developments could trigger a bureaucratic and managerial university that is characterised by the jurisdiction of managers, and a larger number of new higher education professionals, combined ‘with a reduction of the role of the academic profession’, and the ‘growing role of mechanisms of evaluation, reporting’.</p> <p>As indicated above, higher education institutions are expected ‘to do more with less’ (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>] ). This implies that revenue sources, particularly governments, will continue to decline in favour of tuition increases and/or private sector investments (ideally, also non‐profit philanthropy, but that is so far a hope rather than a reality). To achieve this, they need a strong and well‐resourced external partner, which would probably require practically‐oriented higher education and better skills in graduates. Based on past surveys (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>] ), we already know which competencies employers seek from higher education graduates and which areas have competency shortages and surpluses. However, little is known about how higher education could generate these competencies and whether institutions could do it alone. Other surveys (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref32">45</reflink>] ; Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>] ) revealed that higher education institutions considered themselves far more important actors than employers in generating competencies. Employers reported a shortage of competencies in graduates more than graduates. Higher education institutions perceived traditional learning modes as a suitable vehicle for developing competencies, whereas both graduates and employers preferred active learning modes, such as problem‐based learning or teamwork, as key factors in generating competencies. Empirical data have shown that employers were satisfied with the level of theoretical knowledge acquired by graduates, but were less satisfied with their practical experience. Based on empirical results, we assume that amongst all competencies, employers require young graduates to be masters in their field, have the ability to work under stress, engage in teamwork, be proficient in time management and be able to work with a computer and the Internet (ibid.).</p> <p>Based on information gathered from past surveys and international conferences (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref34">45</reflink>] ; Pavlin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref36">42</reflink>] ), some blueprints of how employers imagine the future development of higher education have already been published. As expected, their views of the main graduate labour market were related to an increase in practical work, traineeships, university‐business cooperation, adaptation to employers’ needs, improvements in the financial system, curriculum development, greater professional relevance, flexibility, an international orientation and improvements in teacher training and research. In terms of developing competencies, employers agreed that universities should ‘direct their teaching processes more towards practical issues; increase practical work of students; give more practical courses for specific professional competencies and be involved in higher education decision making processes’ (Pavlin & Svetlik, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>] ). The Pavlin & Svetlik ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>] ) contribution revealed that, in some European countries, employers had complained about the quality of practical training, the low level of adapting curricula to employers’ needs, as well as the weak mobility of academics and students. In general, most believed in the idea of the discrepancy between ‘good practice’ and ‘bad theory’. In this setting, the emerging agenda of university‐business cooperation brings with it several open policy questions such as:</p> <p>(i) What is the overall idea of the relationship between universities and enterprises and what is the workable middle ground for cooperation? What is the overall idea of the relationship between universities and enterprises and what is the workable middle ground for cooperation?</p> <p>(ii) How can the better quality and synergy of various university‐business cooperation modes be ensured, including research and development, mobility of students, their transition from education to the labour market and the accreditation of relevant work experience? How can the better quality and synergy of various university‐business cooperation modes be ensured, including research and development, mobility of students, their transition from education to the labour market and the accreditation of relevant work experience?</p> <p>(iii) What are the key areas of university‐business cooperation, and to what extent should universities be accessible and amenable to those from the world of work? What are the key areas of university‐business cooperation, and to what extent should universities be accessible and amenable to those from the world of work?</p> <p>(iv) What are the main drivers of and barriers to university‐business cooperation? What are the main drivers of and barriers to university‐business cooperation?</p> <p>In the remaining part of the article, we focus on how employers perceive the future development of higher education because their opinion is no longer considered unimportant or trivial.</p> <hd id="AN0113138240-3">Results and Discussion</hd> <hd id="AN0113138240-4">Method and Data</hd> <p>Based on a review of the literature and interviews with experts in the field of university‐business cooperation (UBC), a survey questionnaire was designed, using the framework of the Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Sector Organisations and Universities (EMCOSU) project (Melink et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>] ). The EMCOSU survey asked: What are the most dominant UBC modes, the rationales for them, their key characteristics, perceived avenues of future cooperation and the main drivers of UBC? Because this survey also aimed at improving the understanding of industry's expectations of universities, controlling for experiences in university collaboration, it proved to be an excellent source of information to help us to reach our research goals. In line with the knowledge accumulated in research on UBC (Davey et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>] ), the subjective information provided by the survey respondents was generally very useful (Walters, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref41">52</reflink>] ), although it has been frequently ignored because of the respondents’ level of experience and assessment capabilities (Lowe & Krahn, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>] ). In line with other surveys in the field (Bacila et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>] ; Jung, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>] ; Okamuro et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>] ; Iammarino et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>] ; Yeo & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>] ; De Marchi & Grandinetti, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>] ; Hewitt‐Dundas, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>] ; Plewa et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>] ; Sohal, 2013; Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>] ; Isabel Maria et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>] ; Muscio & Vallanti, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>] ; Plewa et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref54">47</reflink>] ), the target enterprises were examined using non‐probability sampling, implementing principles of quota, purposive and convenience sampling[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>] sector distribution, size of the company, evidence of UBC, geographical scope and level of technological advancement; for a detailed description of the sampling procedure see Melink et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>] , pp. 13‐14); for utility and limitations of the selected sampling procedures see Cochran (2006).</p> <p>The survey addressed the professionals of 397 companies in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. The questionnaire targeted representatives of companies that had insight into the firm's UBC experience or active involvement in such cooperation. Most respondents were managers (CEOs, directors, executive directors and general managers), followed by human resources experts and specialist managers (e.g. heads of departments). The vast majority of the responding companies were private for‐profit organisations. Most companies were small and medium‐sized. Sample considered also proportion between industrial and service sector. The surveying was conducted between November 2013 and June 2014.</p> <p>In our analysis, we used the binary logistic regression technique (Hosmer & Lemeshow, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref57">22</reflink>] ; Kleinbaum & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref58">27</reflink>] ) to model the links between opinions about the extent to which higher education institutions (HEIs) should change and the existing cooperation with/engagement in activities concerning UBC while controlling for the economic sector and profit orientation. Like the seminal studies in the field, we built regression models by testing theoretically‐relevant variables for statistical significance. The following dependent variables, which measured opinions regarding the future changes of HEIs to facilitate UBC, were included in the analysis: increase in the practical orientation of teaching, enhancement of traineeships and internships, improvement in HEIs’ financial systems, focus on short‐ and long‐term skill development, support for international orientation, focus on research and development, strategic cooperation with business, and enabling the valorisation of applied research. The independent variables were the following: a) the extent to which the organisation cooperates with HEIs (R&D; mobility of academics; mobility of students; curriculum development and delivery; adult education, training and short courses); b) frequency of the organisation's engagement in activities related to HEIs (academics’ participation in company boards; businesses’ participation in HEI boards; participation in alumni networks; cooperation with HEIs’ career counselling offices; cooperation with institutes focused on UBC; cooperation with incubators for the development of new businesses; businesses’ participation in study, teaching and research activities); c) type of organisation; and d) economic sector of organisation (see Melink et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>] for a detailed description of the variables).</p> <hd id="AN0113138240-5">Results</hd> <p>The opinions about the way HEIs should change varied considerably. The survey participants on the business side of UBC perceived that some aspects of HEIs were in greater need of change than others. Before examining each variable that was used to explore how and to what extent HEIs needed to change, we observed that the business representatives generally believed that there was much to be done by the universities. The distribution of the responses was heavily skewed in favour of the need to change: most respondents ticked the highest three points on the scale (see Table [NaN] ). The aspects that were perceived to be the most in need of change were the essence of UBC itself: strategic cooperation with business (Mean = 6.19 on a 7‐point scale) and the classical Napoleonic idea of a greater practical orientation of teaching (Mean = 6.04). Followed closely were enhanced traineeships and internships (Mean = 5.71), support for an international orientation (Mean = 5.53) and the focus on long‐term skill development (Mean = 5.49). The business representatives responded that the focus on long‐term skill development should not be highly prioritised (Mean = 4.47), which indicates that they think strategically about universities. Similarly, somewhat less prioritised was the need for universities to improve their financial systems. It was clear that in the post‐2008 recession period, most universities in the examined countries had undergone severe budget cuts and financial rationalisations.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics of the variables regarding business perceptions of future changes in HEIs ( In your view, to what extent should HEIs change in the future? )</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center">Increase the practical orientation of teaching</th><th align="center">Enhance traineeships and internships</th><th align="center">Improvements in their financial systems</th><th align="center">Focus on short‐term skill development</th><th align="center">Focus on long‐term skill development</th><th align="center">Support an international orientation</th><th align="center">Focus on research and development</th><th align="center">Enabling the valorisation of applied research</th><th align="center">Strategic cooperation with business</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="char" char=".">6.04</td><td align="char" char=".">5.71</td><td align="char" char=".">4.96</td><td align="char" char=".">4.47</td><td align="char" char=".">5.49</td><td align="char" char=".">5.53</td><td align="char" char=".">5.21</td><td align="char" char=".">5.33</td><td align="char" char=".">6.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Median</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.50</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mode</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Skewness</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">−1.434</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.011</td><td align="char" char=".">−.422</td><td align="char" char=".">−.142</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.110</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.031</td><td align="char" char=".">−.493</td><td align="char" char=".">−.665</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kurtosis</td><td align="char" char=".">1.869</td><td align="char" char=".">.690</td><td align="char" char=".">−.578</td><td align="char" char=".">−.973</td><td align="char" char=".">.845</td><td align="char" char=".">.435</td><td align="char" char=".">−.391</td><td align="char" char=".">−.227</td><td align="char" char=".">3.344</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Std. Deviation</td><td align="char" char=".">1.238</td><td align="char" char=".">1.308</td><td align="char" char=".">1.601</td><td align="char" char=".">1.764</td><td align="char" char=".">1.506</td><td align="char" char=".">1.558</td><td align="char" char=".">1.470</td><td align="char" char=".">1.523</td><td align="char" char=".">1.166</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Percentiles</td><td align="char" char=".">25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">50</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.50</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 (7‐point scale: 1‐Not at all, 7‐To a very high extent)</p> <p>2 Data source: see the EMCOSU PROJECT RESEARCH GROUP (2014/2015).</p> <p>Binary logistic regression models for business's perception of HEIs' changes in the future ( In your view, to what extent should HEIs change in the future? )</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center">Increase the practical orientation of teaching (Model 1)</th><th align="center">Enhance traineeships and internships (Model 2)</th><th align="center">Improvements in their financial systems (Model 3)</th><th align="center">Focus on short‐term skill development (Model 4)</th><th align="center">Focus on long‐term skill development (Model 5)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">B</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Constant</td><td align="char" char=".">0.629</td><td align="char" char=".">1.876</td><td align="char" char=".">0.291</td><td align="char" char=".">1.338</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.669</td><td align="char" char=".">0.188</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.918</td><td align="char" char=".">0.399</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.771</td><td align="char" char=".">0.170</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Industry sector</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.150</td><td align="char" char=".">0.861</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.251</td><td align="char" char=".">0.778</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.781</td><td align="left">0.458*<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.075</td><td align="char" char=".">0.928</td><td align="char" char=".">0.271</td><td align="char" char=".">1.311</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Service sector</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.101</td><td align="char" char=".">0.904</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.237</td><td align="char" char=".">0.789</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.463</td><td align="char" char=".">0.629</td><td align="char" char=".">0.066</td><td align="char" char=".">1.069</td><td align="char" char=".">0.291</td><td align="char" char=".">1.338</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Public organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.064</td><td align="char" char=".">0.345</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.932</td><td align="left">0.145<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.193</td><td align="char" char=".">1.213</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.449</td><td align="char" char=".">0.235</td><td align="char" char=".">0.295</td><td align="char" char=".">1.343</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Private non‐profit organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.785</td><td align="char" char=".">0.456</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.160</td><td align="left">0.115<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.533</td><td align="char" char=".">0.587</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.886</td><td align="char" char=".">0.412</td><td align="char" char=".">0.921</td><td align="char" char=".">2.513</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Private profit organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.878</td><td align="char" char=".">0.415</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.605</td><td align="left">0.201<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">0.973</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.973</td><td align="char" char=".">0.378</td><td align="char" char=".">0.531</td><td align="char" char=".">1.701</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cooperation with HEIs regarding …</td></tr><tr><td align="left">research and development</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.051</td><td align="char" char=".">0.950</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.123</td><td align="char" char=".">0.884</td><td align="char" char=".">0.055</td><td align="char" char=".">1.057</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.137</td><td align="char" char=".">0.872</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.087</td><td align="char" char=".">0.917</td></tr><tr><td align="left">mobility of academics</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.204</td><td align="left">0.815<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.109</td><td align="char" char=".">0.897</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.950</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.149</td><td align="char" char=".">0.862</td><td align="char" char=".">0.058</td><td align="char" char=".">1.060</td></tr><tr><td align="left">mobility of students</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.096</td><td align="char" char=".">0.908</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.084</td><td align="char" char=".">0.919</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.140</td><td align="char" char=".">0.870</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.155</td><td align="left">0.857<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.055</td><td align="char" char=".">0.947</td></tr><tr><td align="left">curriculum development and delivery</td><td align="char" char=".">0.063</td><td align="char" char=".">1.065</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016</td><td align="char" char=".">1.016</td><td align="char" char=".">0.040</td><td align="char" char=".">1.040</td><td align="char" char=".">0.079</td><td align="char" char=".">1.082</td><td align="char" char=".">0.040</td><td align="char" char=".">1.041</td></tr><tr><td align="left">adult education, training and short courses</td><td align="char" char=".">0.064</td><td align="char" char=".">1.066</td><td align="char" char=".">0.174</td><td align="left">1.190<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.218</td><td align="left">1.244<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.058</td><td align="char" char=".">1.060</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.950</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Engagement in activities regarding …</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation of academics on company boards</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.085</td><td align="char" char=".">0.919</td><td align="char" char=".">0.048</td><td align="char" char=".">1.050</td><td align="char" char=".">0.007</td><td align="char" char=".">1.007</td><td align="char" char=".">0.071</td><td align="char" char=".">1.074</td><td align="char" char=".">0.119</td><td align="char" char=".">1.127</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation of business people on HEIs boards</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.279</td><td align="left">0.756<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.299</td><td align="left">0.742<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.141</td><td align="char" char=".">0.868</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.241</td><td align="left">0.786<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.016</td><td align="char" char=".">0.984</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation in the activities of alumni networks</td><td align="char" char=".">0.145</td><td align="char" char=".">1.156</td><td align="char" char=".">0.129</td><td align="char" char=".">1.138</td><td align="char" char=".">0.024</td><td align="char" char=".">1.024</td><td align="char" char=".">0.103</td><td align="char" char=".">1.108</td><td align="char" char=".">0.088</td><td align="char" char=".">1.092</td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with HEIs career offices</td><td align="char" char=".">0.084</td><td align="char" char=".">1.088</td><td align="char" char=".">0.056</td><td align="char" char=".">1.058</td><td align="char" char=".">0.051</td><td align="char" char=".">1.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.225</td><td align="left">1.252<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.072</td><td align="char" char=".">1.075</td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with institutes focused on UBC</td><td align="char" char=".">0.145</td><td align="left">1.156<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.251</td><td align="left">1.285<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.015</td><td align="char" char=".">1.015</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.092</td><td align="char" char=".">0.912</td><td align="char" char=".">0.055</td><td align="char" char=".">1.057</td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with incubators for the development of new businesses</td><td align="char" char=".">0.066</td><td align="char" char=".">1.068</td><td align="char" char=".">0.035</td><td align="char" char=".">1.036</td><td align="char" char=".">0.071</td><td align="char" char=".">1.074</td><td align="char" char=".">0.015</td><td align="char" char=".">1.016</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.060</td><td align="char" char=".">0.942</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation of business people in study, teaching and research activities</td><td align="char" char=".">0.093</td><td align="char" char=".">1.097</td><td align="char" char=".">0.072</td><td align="char" char=".">1.075</td><td align="char" char=".">0.037</td><td align="char" char=".">1.038</td><td align="char" char=".">0.154</td><td align="char" char=".">1.167</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.040</td><td align="char" char=".">0.960</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Omnibus test (df=17)</td><td align="center">66.404<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">78.502<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">46.939<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">64.196<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">16.072</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hosmer‐Lemeshow test (df=8)</td><td align="center">14.453</td><td align="center">13.242</td><td align="center">4.840</td><td align="center">10.350</td><td align="center">12.479</td></tr><tr><td align="left">−2LL</td><td align="center">539.222</td><td align="center">486.913</td><td align="center">404.678</td><td align="center">346.420</td><td align="center">514.065</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nagelkerke R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center">0.188</td><td align="center">0.227</td><td align="center">0.159</td><td align="center">0.225</td><td align="center">0.052</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall success rate (%)</td><td align="center">63.8</td><td align="center">72.9</td><td align="center">80.0</td><td align="center">83.8</td><td align="center">70.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensitivity/specificity (%)</td><td align="center">57.0/70.4</td><td align="center">43.5/89.0</td><td align="center">17.0/97.6</td><td align="center">21.5/97.7</td><td align="center">7.6/98.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">False positive/false negative rate (%)</td><td align="center">35.1/36.9</td><td align="center">31.6/25.8</td><td align="center">33.3/19.2</td><td align="center">32.0/15.3</td><td align="center">33.3/29.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Area under the ROC curve</td><td align="center">0.696<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">0.730<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">0.711<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">0.757<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center">0.600<sup>**</sup></td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center">Support an international orientation (Model 6)</th><th align="center">Focus on research and development (Model 7)</th><th align="center">Enabling the valorisation of applied research (Model 8)</th><th align="center">Strategic cooperation with business (Model 9)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">B</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th><th align="center">b</th><th align="center">Exp(b)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Constant</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.995</td><td align="char" char=".">0.370</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.445</td><td align="char" char=".">0.236</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.995</td><td align="char" char=".">0.370</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.445</td><td align="char" char=".">0.236</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Industry sector</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.119</td><td align="char" char=".">0.888</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.316</td><td align="char" char=".">0.729</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.360</td><td align="char" char=".">0.698</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.336</td><td align="char" char=".">0.715</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Service sector</td><td align="char" char=".">0.142</td><td align="char" char=".">1.152</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.200</td><td align="char" char=".">0.819</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.105</td><td align="char" char=".">0.900</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.310</td><td align="char" char=".">0.734</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Public organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.595</td><td align="char" char=".">0.551</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.230</td><td align="char" char=".">0.795</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.445</td><td align="char" char=".">0.641</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.129</td><td align="char" char=".">0.879</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Private non‐profit organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.269</td><td align="char" char=".">0.764</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.375</td><td align="char" char=".">0.687</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.262</td><td align="char" char=".">0.283</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.295</td><td align="char" char=".">0.274</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Private profit organisation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.245</td><td align="char" char=".">0.783</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.538</td><td align="char" char=".">0.584</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.481</td><td align="char" char=".">0.618</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.555</td><td align="char" char=".">0.574</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cooperation with HEIs regarding …</td></tr><tr><td align="left">research and development</td><td align="char" char=".">0.051</td><td align="char" char=".">1.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.114</td><td align="char" char=".">1.120</td><td align="char" char=".">0.197</td><td align="char" char=".">1.218<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.078</td><td align="char" char=".">0.925</td></tr><tr><td align="left">mobility of academics</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.154</td><td align="char" char=".">0.858</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.043</td><td align="char" char=".">0.958</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.178</td><td align="char" char=".">0.837</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.059</td><td align="char" char=".">0.943</td></tr><tr><td align="left">mobility of students</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.065</td><td align="char" char=".">0.937</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.056</td><td align="char" char=".">0.946</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.048</td><td align="char" char=".">0.953</td><td align="char" char=".">0.033</td><td align="char" char=".">1.033</td></tr><tr><td align="left">curriculum development and delivery</td><td align="char" char=".">0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">1.002</td><td align="char" char=".">0.013</td><td align="char" char=".">1.013</td><td align="char" char=".">0.165</td><td align="char" char=".">1.179<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.122</td><td align="char" char=".">1.130</td></tr><tr><td align="left">adult education, training and short courses</td><td align="char" char=".">0.067</td><td align="char" char=".">1.069</td><td align="char" char=".">0.186</td><td align="char" char=".">1.204<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.169</td><td align="char" char=".">1.184<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.149</td><td align="char" char=".">1.161<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Engagement in activities regarding …</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation of academics on company boards</td><td align="char" char=".">0.161</td><td align="char" char=".">1.175<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.060</td><td align="char" char=".">1.061</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.067</td><td align="char" char=".">0.935</td><td align="char" char=".">0.066</td><td align="char" char=".">1.068</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation in the activities of alumni networks</td><td align="char" char=".">0.151</td><td align="char" char=".">1.163<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.029</td><td align="char" char=".">1.030</td><td align="char" char=".">0.007</td><td align="char" char=".">1.007</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.012</td><td align="char" char=".">0.988</td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with HEIs career offices</td><td align="char" char=".">0.084</td><td align="char" char=".">1.087</td><td align="char" char=".">0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">1.054</td><td align="char" char=".">0.078</td><td align="char" char=".">1.081</td><td align="char" char=".">0.125</td><td align="char" char=".">1.133<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with institutes focused on UBC</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.061</td><td align="char" char=".">0.941</td><td align="char" char=".">0.021</td><td align="char" char=".">1.021</td><td align="char" char=".">0.104</td><td align="char" char=".">1.110</td><td align="char" char=".">0.110</td><td align="char" char=".">1.117</td></tr><tr><td align="left">cooperation with incubators for the development of new businesses</td><td align="char" char=".">0.066</td><td align="char" char=".">1.069</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.016</td><td align="char" char=".">0.984</td><td align="char" char=".">0.079</td><td align="char" char=".">1.082</td><td align="char" char=".">0.128</td><td align="char" char=".">1.137</td></tr><tr><td align="left">participation of business people in study, teaching and research activities</td><td align="char" char=".">0.044</td><td align="char" char=".">1.045</td><td align="char" char=".">0.062</td><td align="char" char=".">1.064</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.050</td><td align="char" char=".">0.951</td><td align="char" char=".">0.045</td><td align="char" char=".">1.046</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Omnibus test (df=17)</td><td align="char" char=".">39.546<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">33.676<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">67.657<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">74.070<sup>***</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hosmer‐Lemeshow test (df=8)</td><td align="char" char=".">12.003</td><td align="char" char=".">14.259</td><td align="char" char=".">14.793</td><td align="char" char=".">6.523</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">−2LL</td><td align="char" char=".">529.615</td><td align="char" char=".">460.437</td><td align="char" char=".">462.234</td><td align="char" char=".">522.697</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nagelkerke R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.119</td><td align="char" char=".">0.075</td><td align="char" char=".">0.063</td><td align="char" char=".">0.210</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall success rate (%)</td><td align="char" char=".">69.8</td><td align="char" char=".">77.2</td><td align="char" char=".">76.3</td><td align="char" char=".">64.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensitivity/specificity (%)</td><td align="char" char=".">34.8/89.9</td><td align="char" char=".">16.2/98.1</td><td align="char" char=".">37.7/92.8</td><td align="char" char=".">68.8/59.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">False positive/false negative rate (%)</td><td align="char" char=".">33.7/29.3</td><td align="char" char=".">25.0/22.6</td><td align="char" char=".">31.0/22.3</td><td align="char" char=".">32.4/39.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Area under the ROC curve</td><td align="char" char=".">0.655<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.667<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.723<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">0.723<sup>***</sup></td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Notes: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01</item> <item>4 Data source: see the EMCOSU project research group (2014/2015).</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the selected variables, we constructed nine binary logistic regression models because we chose the same number of dependent variables to measure the opinion of business representatives about the extent to which HEIs should change. The omnibus test of coefficients, −2 log likelihood (−2LL) statistics, the Hosmer–Lemeshow test and the Nagelkerke R<sups>2</sups> were used as key measures of the fit of the nine models. The test was used to etermine the significance of an improvement in the new model, and the explanatory variables were included in the baseline model. The results showed that all nine models were a significantly better fit than the null model. The Hosmer‐Lemeshow test was used to test the null hypothesis that the predictions made by the model fitted perfectly with the observed group memberships. The nonsignificant chi‐square indicated that the data fitted the model for all the estimated models except Model 5. The results of the Nagelkerke R<sups>2</sups> indicated how the degree of variation in the dependent variable was explained by the model. The results suggested that Model 2 (22.7%) and Model 4 (22.5%) explained best the variations in the dependent variable.</p> <p>The classification ability of the models was evaluated using a table that included the following measures: overall success rate (percentage of correct predictions), sensitivity (percentage of correct predictions of the event), specificity (percentage of correct predictions of the non‐event), false positive rate (percentage of predicted event that was observed as non‐event), false negative rate (percentage of predicted non‐events that were observed as events). Model 4 recorded the best overall success rate (83.8%). The highest sensitivity was observed in Model 9 (69.8%) and the highest specificity was observed in Model 8 (98.1%). The highest false positive error rate in classification (predicted event as if it occurred when it did not) was observed in Model 1 (35.7%), and the lowest was observed in Model 7 (25.0%). The highest false negative error rate in classification (predicted event as if did not occur when it did) was observed in Model 9 (39.5%), and the lowest was observed in Model 4 (15.3%). In terms of the ROC curve diagnostic,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>] for all estimated models (except Model 5), the area under the ROC curve was significantly different from p = 0.05, which means that the specified models classified the event/group significantly better than by chance. Four models (Models 1, 5, 6 and 7) were ‘poor’ (0.6–0.7) at separating an event from a non‐event. The remaining five models (Models 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9) were ‘fair’ (0.7–0.8) at separating an event[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>] from a non‐event.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]</p> <p>The results of the binary logistic regression of Model 1 showed that the odds of the perceived extent of the future change of HEIs regarding the increase in practical orientation of teaching rose by 1.226 with every decrease by one level of the extent of organisational cooperation with HEIs regarding the mobility of academics. In other words, the greater the firm's cooperation with universities in terms of the mobility of academics, the lower the perceived need for HEIs to increase the practical orientation of teaching. Furthermore, the odds of the perceived need for HEIs to greatly change in terms of practical orientation increased by 1.323 with every decrease by one level of the extent of the organisation's participation in HEI boards. Interestingly, the effect of cooperation with institutes focused on UBC showed the contrary: the odds of a very high number of HEIs changing with regard to the greater practical orientation of teaching increased by 1.156 with every decrease by one level of the extent of organisational cooperation with institutes that were focused on UBC.</p> <p>In terms of the perceived need to enhance traineeship and internship schemes (Model 2), the odds of the representatives of non‐public organisations to perceive the need for HEIs to greatly change were 6.897 times greater than for public organisations. In the case of organisations that were not private non‐profit organisations, the need to change was 8.696 times greater than for private non‐profit organisations. In the case of non‐private profit organisations, the need to change was 4.975 times greater than for private profit organisations. In other words, the representatives of private non‐profit organisations felt the least that traineeship and internship schemes needed to be greatly enhanced. These results were followed by the results of the responses of representatives of public organisations, private profit organisations and other organisational forms. Furthermore, the odds of perceiving that HEIs needed to greatly change with regard to the enhancement of traineeships and internships increased by 1.190 with every increase in one level of cooperation with HEIs regarding adult education, training and short courses. In line with Model 1, the odds of the perceived very high extent of HEIs’ need to change in the future regarding traineeships and internships increased by 1.348 with every decrease by one level of the extent of the organisational participation of business people on HEI boards. This result indicates that the participation of businesses on HEI boards would reduce the perceived need for traineeships and internships in the future. Interestingly, as in Model 1, the odds of a very great perceived need for HEIs to change increased by 1.285 with every increase in one level of the extent of organisational cooperation with institutes focused on UBC. Experience with institutes focused on UBC therefore again increased the perceived need for HEIs to change in the future.</p> <p>Model 3 was used to investigate the perceived need to greatly improve the financial systems of HEIs. The results revealed that the odds that the industry sector believed that HEIs should greatly improve their financial systems were 2.183 times smaller than for organisations in the other examined sectors (service and ICT). In addition, the odds of company representatives believing that HEIs financial systems should deeply change increased by 1.244 with every increase by one level of the cooperation with HEIs regarding adult education, training and short courses.</p> <p>Model 4 was used to examine the need to focus on short‐term skill development. The results showed that the odds that representatives would believe that HEIs should strongly focus on this variable increased by 1.167 with every decrease by one level of the extent of the organisation's cooperation with HEIs regarding student mobility. This result indicates that student mobility contributes to firms’ realisation that short‐term skill development is not the most important function of HEIs. Similarly, participation on HEIs boards showed a similar effect: the odds that the representatives of companies believed that HEIs should focus on short‐term skill development increased by 1.272 with every decrease by one level of the extent of an organisation's participation on HEIs boards. In contrast, cooperation with HEIs career offices was positively associated with the perceived need to increase short‐term skill development. This result shed a different light on the potential effects of career offices. In other words, the odds that the representatives of companies believed that HEIs should strongly focus on short‐term skill development increased by 1.252 with every increase in one level of the extent of the organisation's cooperation with HEIs career offices.</p> <p>Model 6 was used to examine the perceived need to support international orientation. The results revealed that the odds of greatly supporting this need increased by 1.175 with every increase in one level of the extent of the organisation's inclusion of academics on company boards. A similar effect was identified for the participation of companies in the activities of alumni networks. The odds of business representatives believing that HEIs should greatly support international orientation increased by 1.163 with every increase by one level of the extent of the organisation's participation in the activities of alumni networks. In contrast, the participation of businesses on HEIs boards produced a different effect. The odds that the surveyed representatives of companies would believe that HEIs should greatly support international orientation increased by 1.168 with every decrease by one level of the extent of the business's participation on HEIs boards.</p> <p>Model 7 was used to determine whether intensive participation of business representatives on HEIs boards would limit the belief that HEIs should strongly focus on research and development. The results showed that the odds of representatives of firms believing that HEIs should strongly focus on research and development increased by 1.185 with every decrease by one level in the extent of the organisation's participation on HEIs boards. In contrast, regarding the cooperation of firms in terms of adult education, training and short courses, the surveyed organisations indicated that HEIs should focus on research and development. The results showed that the odds of surveyed representatives believing that HEIs should strongly focus on research and development increased by 1.204 with every increase by one level of the company's cooperation with HEIs regarding adult education, training and short courses.</p> <p>Model 8 was used to examine the extent to which HEIs should enable the valorisation of applied research. The results showed that cooperation with HEIs in terms of research and development was positively associated with the valorisation of applied research. The odds of the surveyed representatives believing that HEIs should greatly enable the valorisation of applied research increased by 1.218 with every increase by one level of the company's cooperation with HEIs regarding research and development. Similarly, the odds increased by 1.179 with every increase by one level of the company's cooperation with HEIs regarding curriculum development and delivery. Similarly, the odds of the surveyed representatives of companies believing that HEIs should greatly enable the valorisation of applied research increased by 1.184 with every increase by one level of the company's cooperation with HEIs regarding adult education, training and short courses. In contrast, the participation of business on HEI boards was associated with the limited belief that valorisation was important. The odds of the surveyed participants believing that HEIs should enable the valorisation of applied research to a very high extent increased by 1.282 with every decrease in one level of the extent of the organisation's participation on HEI boards.</p> <p>Model 9 was used to determine whether strategic cooperation with business was associated with several aspects of the existing cooperation and intensity of engagement. The odds of surveyed representatives of companies believing that HEIs should closely cooperate with businessincreased by 1.161 with every increase in one level of the company's cooperation with HEIs regarding adult education, training and short courses. Cooperation with HEIs career offices was similarly associated with the belief in the need for strategic cooperation in the future. The odds that the surveyed representatives would believe that HEIs should focus on strategic cooperation with business increased by 1.133 with every increase in one level of the extent of organisation's cooperation with HEIs career offices. As in the case with some other models, the participation of business on the boards of HEIs functioned differently. The odds of business representatives believing that HEIs should focus strategically on closely cooperating with business increased by 1.188 with every decrease in one level of the extent of the organisation's participation on HEI boards.</p> <hd id="AN0113138240-6">Conclusion</hd> <p>The analysis indicated that the level at which companies participated in university‐business cooperation greatly influenced how they perceived that higher education institutions should develop in future. Companies with greater experience in university‐business cooperation pressed for more strategic cooperation between universities and business, more support for the international orientation of academic institutions, and less attention to the immediate valorisation of applied research, a practical orientation and short‐term skill development.</p> <p>Like other studies, this study used a false binary: the question of whether HEIs and higher education in general should cooperate with or resist the private sector. When higher education institutions were organised as finishing schools for élites, students from privileged families were funded by their association with industry and, upon graduation, entered that sector as entrepreneurs and employees. Hence, contemporary and realistic questions pertain to whether and how to recast relationships between HEIs and the higher education sector with organisations in the industrial sector. The governmental sector and policy makers mitigate, regulate and direct the variables associated with these questions. In short, funding is increasingly linked to accountability measures and instruments that clearly privilege instrumental and market‐driven interests.</p> <p>Given the broad context in which HEIs have less autonomy and are increasingly subject to the external demands caused by the distribution of resources, the imposed binary is even more redundant. As in many other instances of interdependence, including the influence of organisations and sectors, it is perhaps more productive to explore how to make the best of the inevitable intersections between sectors. In this article, we approached these intersections in terms of HEIs and business organisations, which are both influenced and enforced by policymakers. This approach led us to contemplate a ‘both/and’ arrangement in which there will be decisions regarding resources, regulations and accountability which will force HEIs to continue to cooperate with private sector organisations. Also understood is the prospect that such cooperation can—and should—be mutually beneficial. Indeed, if there is a battle to be waged, it is on the counter‐narratives and resistance of HEI representatives (e.g. faculty, administrators and students) to demand, establish and rigidify a reciprocally respectful partnership in which both HEIs and the business sector benefit and to require that policymakers structurally reinforce this arrangement.</p> <p>The linchpin could reside in students, whose increasing consumerism can both ensure that HEIs are accountable to teach them as whole persons and prepare them for success (and happiness?) in the world of work. Here again, the consumerism bemoaned and critiqued by academics might actually serve to mitigate and reshape the influence of the market in order to achieve a moderate balance between learning for its own sake and learning to earn a living. This theoretical middle ground might also achieve a balance that is valuable for the engagement of graduates in democratic citizenship. Such a conjecture is theoretical because the current situation resembles a confederation of realities rather than one overarching reality. At present, some students do not complete their programme of study, some complete it but remain un/under‐employed, some are adequately employed, and some achieve wealth. The variables of these outcomes do not solely depend on the questions raised in this article. They are as complex and varied as humans and organisations. For instance, an HEI that is regarded as prestigious might readily attract private sector partnerships and investments, but could produce graduates who are doomed to wealthy misery. Some HEIs that are seen as unimpressive can actually spend less energy, time and money on protecting their brand than their more ‘impressive’ counterparts, thus investing in students’ learning and success. HEIs that are focused on vocational programmes could be marginalised in the sector, but they could graduate students who live well, both personally and financially. Luck is also a variable, and it is not uncommon for graduates from a basic school to achieve great professional and financial success and take interest in supporting their alma mater and its students and graduates.</p> <p>Despite the strong desire by the leadership of HEI and the business and government sectors to find a predictable pathway, human diversity and sensibilities prevent the achievement of this goal. Moreover, the continued delusions slow the prospects of dynamism and synergy. Hence, we recommend a cluster of investments, rather than a targeted investment. This could be achieved through communication, openness and increasing the proverbial ‘dipping of toes’ in each other's waters. Activities such as diverse representation on the boards of HEIs and private sector organisations, internships, practical and mentoring relationships, transparent and collaborative curricular experimentation, non‐traditional educational delivery systems and settings, investments in student mobility, and collaborative research and applications could support a respectful and positive engagement between sectors. Furthermore, the engagements and collaborations of NGOs, governmental and primary educational sectors have much to offer this dynamic and should be explored and piloted in future research.</p> <p>Perhaps it is not that the various sectors are strange bedfellows, but instead that they seem to have forgotten that they have been married forever. Some counselling and the willingness to subordinate egos to the relationship could bring us closer to solving a problem that, in any case, is difficult to articulate.</p> <hd id="AN0113138240-7">DISCLAIMER</hd> <p>The empirical data and conceptual approach of this article are related to the EMCOSU project. The EMCOSU project was funded with support from the European Commission. This article only reflects the views 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="AN0113138240-8"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>‘Type of organisation’ and ‘economic sector of organisation’ variables were converted to dummy variables. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>The area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.5 and 1.0. Larger values indicated better fit. Values closer to 1 indicated a reliable predictor, while values closer to 0.5 indicated a predictor no better than chance. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Because the distribution was highly skewed, the event or the category of interest encompassed a very high value on the 7‐point scale (very high = 7), while the non‐event encompassed other values on the same scale (other = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). For details, see Table I. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>The criteria for the quality of the model were as follows: 0.9‐1 = excellent; 0.8‐0.9 = good; 0.7‐0.8 = fair; 0.6‐0.7 = poor; 0.5‐0.6 = fail. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0113138240-9"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibtext>Allen, J., Pavlin, S. & Van Der Velden, R. (Eds) ( 2011 ) Competencies and Early Labour Market Careers of Higher Education Graduates in Europe ( University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Altbach, P. G, Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. ( 2009 ) Trends in Global Higher Education: tracking an academic revolution. A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education (UNESCO, World Conference on Higher Education). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Altbach, P. G. ( 2013 ) The International Imperative in Higher Education ( Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei, Sense Publishers ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Bacila, M. F., Moisescu, O. I. & Tirca, A. M. ( 2009 ) A study regarding the influence of business size on the availability of business organizations to develop alliances with higher education institutions, Transformations in Business & Economics, 8, pp. 160 – 178. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Cochran, W. G. ( 2006 ) Sampling Techniques ( New York, J. Wiley ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Creswell, J. ( 2009 ) Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn ( London, Sage ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Davey, T., Baaken, T., Deery, M. & Galan Muros, V. (Eds) ( 2011 ) 30 Good Practice Case Studies in University‐Business cooperation ( Science to Business Research Centre & European Commission, DG for Education and Culture ). <ulink href="http://www.ub-cooperation.eu/pdf/casestudyreport.pdf">http://www.ub-cooperation.eu/pdf/casestudyreport.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</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. <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/uni-business-cooperation%5fen.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/uni-business-cooperation%5fen.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>De Marchi, V. & Grandinetti, R. ( 2013 ) Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: the case of Italian manufacturing firms, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, pp. 569 – 582. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref28" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Deem, R. ( 2006 ) Conceptions of contemporary European universities: to do research or not to do research? European Journal of Education, 41, pp. 281 – 304. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref24" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Economist ( 2008 ) The Future of Higher Education: how technology will shape learning ( London, Hong Kong, The Economist Intelligence Unit ). <ulink href="http://www.nmc.org/pdf/Future-of-Higher-Ed-%28NMC%29.pdf">http://www.nmc.org/pdf/Future-of-Higher-Ed-%28NMC%29.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" type="bt">12</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="bib13" type="bt">13</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="bib14" idref="ref9" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Etzkowitz, H. ( 2008 ) The Triple Helix: university‐industry‐government innovation in action ( London, Routledge ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" type="bt">15</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="bib16" idref="ref51" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Franco, M., Haase, H. & Fernandes, A. ( 2014 ) The influence of academic staff's personal and professional characteristics on the decision to cooperate with industry, European Journal of International Management, 8, pp. 293 – 309. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Freeman, C. ( 1987 ) Technology Policy and Economic Performance: lessons from Japan ( London, Pinter ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref2" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Friedman, T. L. ( 2006 ) The World is Flat: a brief history of the twenty‐first century ( New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" type="bt">19</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="bib20" type="bt">20</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="bib21" idref="ref49" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Hewitt‐Dundas, N. ( 2013 ) The role of proximity in university‐business cooperation for innovation, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, pp. 93 – 115. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref57" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. ( 2000 ) Applied Logistic Regression ( Hoboken, NJ, Wiley ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref46" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Iammarino, S., Piva, M., Vivarelli, M. & Von Tunzelmann, N. ( 2012 ) Technological capabilities and patterns of innovative cooperation of firms in the UK regions, Regional Studies, 46, pp. 1283 – 1301. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref52" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Isabel Maria, B. F., Rossi, F. & Geuna, A. ( 2014 ) Collaboration objectives and the location of the university partner: evidence from the Piedmont region in Italy, Papers in Regional Science, 93, pp. 203 – 226. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref44" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Jung, Y. S. ( 2011 ) A study on determinant factors of the Joint Technology Development Project Performance between SMEs and universities, Journal of Technology Innovation, 19, pp. 145 – 176. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref8" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Kesting, T, Plewa, C., Kliewe, T. & Davey, T. ( 2015 ) Editorial, International Journal of Technology Management, 68, Special Issue “University‐Business Cooperation: Individuals and organisations at the interface, pp. 151–158. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref58" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Kleinbaum, D.G. & Klein, M. ( 2010 ) Logistic Regression ( New York, NY, Springer ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref11" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Krause, K‐L. ( 2009 ) Interpreting changing academic roles and identities in higher Education, in: M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman & C. Morphew (Eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education ( Routledge ) pp. 487 – 501. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref19" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Kwiek, M. ( 2009 ) The changing attractiveness of European higher education in the next decade: current developments, future challenges and major policy issues, European Educational Research Journal, 8, pp. 218 – 235. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref16" type="bt">30</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="bib31" idref="ref25" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Lefrere, P. ( 2007 ) Competing higher education futures in a globalising world, European Journal of Education, 42, pp. 202 – 212. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref14" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Leisyte, L. & Dee, J. R. ( 2012 ) Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment ‐faculty autonomy, productivity, and identity in Europe and the United States, in: J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ( Springer ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref42" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Lowe, G.S. & Krahn, H. ( 1995 ) Job‐related education and training among young workers, Canadian Public Policy, 21, pp. 362 – 378. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref23" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Meek, V. L., Teichler, U. & Kearney, M‐L. (Eds) ( 2009 ) Higher Education, Research and Innovation: changing dynamics. Report on the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge 2001‐2009 ( Kassel, International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref39" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Melink, M., Pušnik, T. & Pavlin, S. ( 2014 ) Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Enterprises and Universities – Insights of European Enterprises and Employers Organisations (Ljubljana, EMCOSU project report). <ulink href="http://www.emcosu.eu/static/uploaded/files/outcomes/01%5fEMCOSU%5fInternational%5fReport.pdf">http://www.emcosu.eu/static/uploaded/files/outcomes/01%5fEMCOSU%5fInternational%5fReport.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref53" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Muscio, A. & Vallanti, G. ( 2014 ) Perceived obstacles to university‐industry collaboration: results from a qualitative survey of Italian academic departments, Industry and Innovation, 21, pp. 410 – 429. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref10" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Musselin, C. ( 2007 ) Transformation of academic work: facts and analysis, in: M. Kogan & U. Teichler (Eds) Key Challenges to the Academic Profession ( Paris and Kassel. UNESCO Forum on Higher Education ) pp. 175 – 190. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref30" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>OECD ( 2010 ) Higher Education in a World Changed Utterly ‐ Doing More with Less. OECD Paris, 13‐15 September 2010. <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/site/eduimhe10/">http://www.oecd.org/site/eduimhe10/</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref26" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>OECD ( 2015 ‐) Four Future Scenarios for Higher Education. France International Conference Higher Education to 2030: What Futures for Quality Access in the Era of Globalisation? ( OECD ). <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/site/eduhe30/41809568.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/site/eduhe30/41809568.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref45" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Okamuro, H., Kato, M. & Honjo, Y. ( 2011 ) Determinants of R&D cooperation in Japanese start‐ups, Research Policy, 40, pp. 728 – 738. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref17" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. ( 2011 ). Conference Proceedings ‐ Employability of Graduates and Higher Education Management Systems. Vienna, Austria, 22 & 23. September, 2011. DEHEMS skupina. <ulink href="http://www.dehems-project.eu/static/uploaded/files/files/resoults/ZBORNIK%5fPart%5fI%5f-%5fVienna%5ffinal.pdf">http://www.dehems-project.eu/static/uploaded/files/files/resoults/ZBORNIK%5fPart%5fI%5f-%5fVienna%5ffinal.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref18" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. ( 2012 ) Zaposljivost diplomantov in sistemi menedžmenta visokošolskega izobraževanja/Conference Proceedings ‐ Employability of Graduates and Higher Education Management Systems. Slovenia, Ljubljana, 27 & 28. September, 2012. DEHEMS skupina ( University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences ). <ulink href="http://www.dehems-project.eu/static/uploaded/files/files/resoults/ZBORNIK%5fPart%5fII%5f-%5fLjubljana%5ffinal.pdf">http://www.dehems-project.eu/static/uploaded/files/files/resoults/ZBORNIK%5fPart%5fII%5f-%5fLjubljana%5ffinal.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref5" type="bt">43</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="bib44" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Pavlin, S. & Judge, A. N. (Eds) ( 2009 ) DECOWE: Development of Competences in the World of Work and Education: Conference Proceedings ( Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana ). <ulink href="http://www.decowe.org/static/uploaded/htmlarea/decowe/reports/DECOWE-april2011%5f2.pdf">http://www.decowe.org/static/uploaded/htmlarea/decowe/reports/DECOWE-april2011%5f2.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref32" type="bt">45</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. HEGESCO project ( University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences ), pp. 61 – 66. <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>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref4" type="bt">46</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="bib47" idref="ref54" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Plewa, C., Galán‐Muros, V. & Davey, T. ( 2015 ) Engaging business in curriculum design and delivery: a higher education institution perspective, Higher Education, The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 70, pp. 35 – 53. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref50" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Plewa, C., Korff, N., Baaken, T. & Macpherson, G. ( 2013 ) University‐industry linkage evolution: an empirical investigation of relational success factors, R&D Management, 43, pp. 365 – 380. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Sohal, A. S. ( 2013 ) Developing competencies of supply chain professionals in Australia: collaboration between businesses, universities and industry associations, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18, pp. 429 – 439. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref29" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Teichler, U. ( 2003 ) The future of higher education and the future of higher education research, Tertiary Education and Management, 9, pp. 171 – 185. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref21" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Teichler, U. ( 2008 ) Diversification? Trends and explanations of the shape and size of higher education, Higher Education, 56, pp. 349 – 379. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref41" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Walters, D. ( 2004 ) The relationship between postsecondary education and skills: comparing credentialism with human capital theory, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34, pp. 97 – 124. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref12" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Whitchurch, C. ( 2004 ) Administrative managers – a critical link, Higher Education Quarterly, 58, pp. 280 – 298. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref47" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Yeo, T. D. & Lee, H. Y. ( 2012 ) A case study on the industry‐academy‐government cooperation to intensify export competitiveness of local SMEs – focused on Gyeongbuk PRIDE Products, International Commerce and Information Review, 14, pp. 411 – 443. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref20" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Zgaga, P. ( 2004 ) Bolonjski proces, Oblikovanje skupnega evropskega visokošolskega prostora ( Ljubljana, Center za študij educkacijskih strategij, Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta ). </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tomaž Deželan; Jason Laker and Samo Pavlin</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1091409
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What Determines Enterprises' Perceptions of Future Development in Higher Education--Strange Bedfellows?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deželan%2C+Tomaž%22">Deželan, Tomaž</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laker%2C+Jason%22">Laker, Jason</searchLink><br /><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):107-125.
– 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: 19
– 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="%22Entrepreneurship%22">Entrepreneurship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Business+Relationship%22">School Business Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employers%22">Employers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Colleges%22">Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employer+Attitudes%22">Employer Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12169
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In the last few decades, global changes such as an ever more integrated world economy, new technologies or the emergence of an international knowledge network have increasingly determined developments in European higher education. Policymakers have addressed these challenges using processes that support the practical orientation of higher education, including university-business cooperation. Because employers are becoming important stakeholders and partners in the creation of higher education policy, the future developers of higher education need to know what employers expect of future development and whether they will meet or resist those expectations when it comes to their input. In this article, we identify the areas that need to be improved upon and examine the ways in which employers' experiences with higher education determine their perceptions of it. Building on the EMCOSU (Emerging Modes of Cooperation between Private Sector Organisations and Universities) survey, we analysed the responses of professionals of 397 companies based in five European countries. The analysis indicated that the level at which companies participated in university-business cooperation strongly influenced their perception of the way higher education institutions should develop. To be precise, those with greater experience in university-business cooperation pressed for more strategic cooperation between universities and business, more support for the international orientation of academic institutions, and less attention to the immediate valorisation of applied research, practical orientation and short-term skill development.
– 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: EJ1091409
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1091409
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12169
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 107
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Entrepreneurship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Business Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employer Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What Determines Enterprises' Perceptions of Future Development in Higher Education--Strange Bedfellows?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deželan, Tomaž
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laker, Jason
      – 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