FORMAL-INFORMAL CHANNELS OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER: THE CASE OF AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS SCHOOLS
Quyen T. Dang; Pavlina Jasovska; Hussain Gulzar Rammal*; Katie Schlenker
UTS Business School
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The transfer of knowledge between university and industry is a significant activity that is facilitated by government policy and incentives. Australian universities have a global reputation for excellence in research and training. However, the country’s low score in innovation ranking has prompted the government and industry bodies to emphasise the importance of and provide support to high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. We study the knowledge transfer practices of 10 Australian universities and provide insights into how these universities, and in particular the Business Schools, respond to the funding cuts faced by the university sector. We find that the universities use both formal (research centres, incubators, and contract-research and commercialisation) and informal channels (internships, mentoring, industry talks, transdisciplinary research platforms, collaborative Ph.D. programs, and industry training programs) to transfer knowledge with industry partners.
Keywords: University-Industry knowledge transfer; Australia; STEM; formal and informal
channels
INTRODUCTION
Universities play a pivotal role in the collaborative relationship between governments and
industry. Universities undertake high-quality research and are tasked by governments to
generate and transfer knowledge to the industry and the broader community (Baglieri, Baldi, &
Tucci, 2018). This relationship is best explained by the Triple Helix Model of collaboration
between university, industry and government (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000) which attempts to
encourage and support the development of distribution channels that facilitate the transfer of
research, technology and knowledge between universities and industries (known as universities-
industry collaboration or UIC) (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015).
1
Public universities in many countries are facing the challenges of growing competition for
research funding. To address the challenge, universities are attempting to become more
entrepreneurial and finding avenues to fund their activities (Fischer, Schaeffer, Vonortas, &
Queiroz, 2018). Hence, the term entrepreneurial universities is used to refer to universities that
drive innovation and entrepreneurship activities (Guerrero, Urbano, Fayolle, Klofsten, & Mian,
2016) and the University-Industry (U-I) knowledge exchange is seen as one of the key pillars
that define an entrepreneurial university (OECD, 2012).
While sustaining a long-term UIC relationship can be beneficial for all parties involved
(Kaklauskas et al., 2018), the role of the government in influencing this relationship can have a
bearing on the nature and the channels of distribution used for the transfer of knowledge. We
study the Australian university sector to highlight this collaborative relationship and the
knowledge transfer mechanisms used in the UIC. A majority of the Australian universities are
public-funded, and as such their emphasis on innovation and knowledge creation focuses on
faculties that address priority areas identified by the government. The Australian government
has introduced a National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) and committed AU$1.1
billion dollars for this initiative (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). This national agenda
reflects the government’s emphasis on high-quality science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields, which are seen as influencing the future productivity of the
country (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013). Under this initiative, the government has
identified and allocated funds for educational and training initiatives across the education sector
(from schools to universities) that help the delivery/ transfer of technology and knowledge and
has made attempts to incorporate STEM education within the Australian Curriculum for schools
(ACARA, 2016; Education Council, 2018). Within the university sector, the NISA linked
initiatives have resulted in increased funding allocation for faculties that are directly linked to
the STEM areas, and there are fewer opportunities for faculties like business to access the
linkages and resources. More recently, the Australian government has indicated that failure by
universities to increase enrolment in science and maths programs could affect the funding they
receive (Wright, 2018).
In this study, we explore what strategic responses the Australian universities and their Business
Schools implement to overcome the challenges posed by the government’s priority on STEM
areas; and how these strategic responses are integrated into U-I knowledge transfer channels.
We analysed relevant reports related to the Australian Government’s NISA and focus on STEM
2
fields, as well as publicly accessible strategic and policy statements and reports for the 10
Australian universities, with particular emphasis on the strategies employed by the Business
Schools for U-I knowledge transfer.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: the review of the literature on U-I
knowledge transfer and UIC is presented in the next section, followed by an overview of the
Australian university sector. The research method followed in this study is detailed next, before
the key findings of this study are presented. The paper concludes by discussing the findings of
this research and implications for the three stakeholders: universities, industries, and
governments.
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
The UIC, and U-I knowledge transfer, in particular, have been the subject of growing interest
and academic research. The collaboration between the two sides signifies their interdependence.
For universities to continue to fund their world-class research and innovation, they need the
support of industry partners for collaborative research funding as well as opportunities for their
students to gain work-integrated learning experience to improve their future employment
prospects (Frunzaru, Vătămănescu, Gazzola, & Bolisani, 2018). Industry partners seek the
knowledge that universities generate to improve the competitiveness and innovation of their
business practices. As these organisations are also potential employers of past and future
graduates from the universities, their collaborative relationship with the university allows them
to provide input into the skills and knowledge they seek from the future pool of candidates.
Despite this two-way relationship, the majority of the extant literature tends to focus on the
transfer of knowledge from universities to industry (Franco & Haase, 2015; Scandura, 2016;
Soh & Subramanian, 2014), and there is a need for further research on industry to university
knowledge transfer mechanisms and outcomes (Ankrah, Burgess, Grimshaw, & Shaw, 2013).
The literature on U-I knowledge transfer is categorised into different streams. Agarwal (2001)
in his review of university-to-industry knowledge transfer classifies extant literature into four
areas: firm characteristics; university characteristics; geography concerning localised
spillovers and channels of knowledge transfer. Firm characteristics refer to the ability of
industry firms to absorb externally generated knowledge, including that from universities
(Hermans & Castiaux, 2017), which can then be internalised to facilitate innovation in products
and processes (Guo, Jasovska, Rammal, & Rose, 2018). The university characteristics stream of
3
literature focuses on university policies regarding licensing strategies, intellectual property, and
commercialisation of research (Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2003). The transfer of tacit
knowledge requires interaction in person, and this is the focus of the research stream on
geography concerning localised spillovers (Ponds, van Oort, & Frenken, 2010). Finally,
research contracts, patents, and publications are some of the channels of knowledge transfer that
the literature focuses on (Arenas & González, 2018).
The transfer of knowledge between university and industry can be through formal and informal
channels (Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2004). According to Vedovello (1997), the formal channels
consists of a contractual agreement between the universities and organisations where they
jointly explore opportunities to exploit the knowledge and expertise available to them. Informal
channels of transfer involve access to the expertise, equipment, and capabilities that embodies
the knowledge. While some studies suggest a human channel of transfer involving students and
industry, based on the nature of the interaction, we include these as part of the informal or formal
channels. These distribution channels allow universities to meet the challenge and increased
pressure for greater collaboration with industry to gain access to resources including funding
for research projects (Bekkers & Freitas, 2008). Industry, on the other hand, can benefit from
the collaboration by developing capabilities that help improve their competitiveness (Ferreira,
Raposo, Rutten, & Varga, 2013; Piterou & Birch, 2014).
The UIC faces many barriers in the knowledge transfer process. Muscio & Vallanti (2014)
identify some of these barriers to the U-I relationship including deviation from the university
and industry partner’s core objectives, the added pressures on universities to continue providing
high quality teaching when academic resources are diverted to entrepreneurial activities, and the
risk of independence of universities being questioned if they are seen to undertake industry-
funded projects. Despite these concerns, evidence suggests that an entrepreneurial university
does not distract academics from traditional activities (Kalar & Antoncic, 2015). Moreover,
Cheng, Zhang, Huang, & Liao (2018) believe that the relationship can be beneficial for all
sides, and an effective UIC policy that involves the government can have a significant positive
effect on the collaboration input. Trust between U-I partners is another significant barrier to
collaboration, which can be lowered if the organisations have had prior experience of
collaborative research (Bruneel, D’Este, & Salter, 2010; Rajalo & Vadi, 2017).
AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY SECTOR
4
The Australian higher education sector includes universities and other institutions that are
involved in providing post-secondary school education (Department of Education and Training
- Australian Government, 2018). The sector operates under the national policy for regulated
qualification called the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which incorporates
qualification from institutions into a single national qualification framework (AQF, 2018). In
addition to AQF, Australia has a national regulatory and quality agency for higher education
called the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which was established
by the Australian government to regulate higher education providers against a set of standards
(Study in Australia - Australian Government, 2018b).
Australia consists of six States (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania,
Victoria, and Western Australia), and two territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern
Territory) (Australian Government, 2018b). There are 43 universities that operate in the various
States and territories in Australia, including two international universities and one private
speciality university. New South Wales is home to the largest number of universities (11),
whereas one university is located in both the Northern Territory and Tasmania (Study in
Australia - Australian Government, 2018a).
The Australian university sector is a significant contributor to the economy, with revenues of
AU$30.1 billion, and a surplus of AU$1.6 billion (EY, 2018). The sector employs 100,000
people (about 8 per cent of the Australian workforce), and is the third largest export sector,
adding 5.2 per cent of real gross value to the economy (Austrade, 2018). With 24 per cent of
international students studying in Australian universities, international accreditation is seen as a
way of demonstrating quality standards to prospective students and employers globally. For
Australian Business Schools, two such options include being accredited by the Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the European Quality Improvement
System (EQUIS). Both AACSB and EQUIS reinforce the UIC and include reference to
corporate connections and transfer of knowledge to the industry as key criteria for accreditation
(AACSB, 2018; EQUIS, 2018). Ernst & Young in their report on the future of Australian
universities suggests that to remain competitive, universities need to co-create and collaborate
with industry (EY, 2018).
However, despite the presence of a strong university sector, Australia still lags behind other
OECD countries for innovation (Universities Australia, 2018a). The Australian government has
responded by introducing the NISA and has AU$1.1 billion dollars for this initiative, which
5
places emphasis on high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
fields, which are seen as areas of priority for future economic growth and competitiveness of
the country (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013). UIC and knowledge transfer are seen as
critical drivers for the growth of the STEM fields, both in terms of innovation and training
teachers to implement the government’s emphasis on science and maths within the school
curriculum. A recent report by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation
and Science made recommendations under five strategic policy imperatives to improve
Australia’s innovation standing (Innovation and Science Australia, 2017). Three of the
recommendations relate to education and industry engagement, with an emphasis on supporting
jobs for the future, increased commercialisation of research and support for high-growth firms
(Innovation and Science Australia, 2017). Having accepted these recommendations, the
government has directed Australian universities to increase enrolment and training in STEM-
related subjects and programs (Australian Government, 2018a).
Industry reports have also previously highlighted the importance of STEM for future workplace
requirements, but there are concerns that UIC remains low with only 27 per cent of Australian
R&D firms involved in any form of collaboration with universities (Deloitte Access Economics,
2014). This engagement has been even lower in Work Integrated Learning (WIL) programs
such as internships, which have historically been focussed on STEM sectors. However, there
have been efforts made recently by industry bodies and universities to encourage engagement
with business faculties and introduce further WIL opportunities within the business programs
(Edwards, Perkins, Pearce, & Hong, 2015).
In Australia, Business Schools have recognised expertise in research, but their relationship with
industry and the public sector remains weak (Guthrie, 2017). Acknowledging the role that the
NISA can play in improving Australia’s innovation, Guthrie (2017) argues that Australian
Business Schools have to increase industry engagement and need to think beyond merely
providing technical knowledge to students to also developing an entrepreneurial mindset. As
government funding is based on the number of students enrolled in a program, there is a risk
that Business Schools could see a reduction in the funding they receive. The reduction in funds
are in addition to the AU$2.2 billion funding cuts the broader university sector is facing in
Australia (Karp, 2018). In this study, we attempt to explore how Australian Business Schools
use their collaboration with the industry to address these funding issues and their strategic
response to increased pressure for entrepreneurial activities.
6
RESEARCH METHOD
A case study approach was used to explore the strategic responses of Australian universities and
their Business Schools to the Government’s NISA and priority on STEM areas. The case study
approach allows for the investigation of contemporary phenomena in context (Yin, 2014). As
there is no single acceptable number of cases required, consideration was given to practical
considerations including the research context, resources available and accessibility of data
(Emmel, 2014). Purposive sampling was then used to identify ‘information rich’ cases of the
matter being explored (Patton, 2002). This method is considered appropriate in instances where
the intention is to identify particular cases of a phenomenon for in-depth investigation, rather
than to generalise across an entire population (Neuman, 2006).
The sampling frame from which we selected our cases was the Group of Eight (Go8) and
Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN). The Go8 and ATN represent the oldest
and the technology-driven universities respectively and are ranked among the best universities
in the world (see Table 1). By including one university from each group in each Australian
State/Territory, we can observe whether the strategic response of the university is influenced by
their location or their presence in either of the university groups. Thus, we chose two
universities from those States and Territories in Australia where both a Go8 and an ATN
university are located. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Northern Territory, and
Tasmania did not meet this criterion, and therefore universities located within these States and
Territories were not included in the sample. Using this approach, data for the study were
collected from 10 Australian universities, consisting of a sample of five Go8 universities and
five ATN universities, representing five Australian states (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, Western
Australia, and South Australia). Table 1 presents the 10 universities included in the study
sample.
---INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
---Notes Table 1): * QUT left ATN on 28 September 2018 (QUT, 2018). Since the data for QUT was collected before the university’s departure from the ATN, we have included it within the group.
University ranking data sourced from Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 (Times Higher Education, 2018). Other data sourced from (Australian Technology Network, 2018; Group of Eight Australia, 2018; Universities Australia, 2018b)
7
Data for the case studies were collected during August-September 2018. Two categories of
publicly available documents were consulted. First, we collected relevant reports and policy
documents published by the Australian government, the universities, and industry groups
related to the NISA, focus on STEM fields and UIC. We reviewed these sources to trace key
events in the industry represented by regulatory and policy changes related to the STEM agenda
and related funding schemes. Then, the websites and strategic documents (annual reports,
strategic plans, brochures, and mission and vision statements) of the ten universities and their
Business Schools were analysed to identify critical strategic responses to the Australian
government funding allocations, and the initiatives taken concerning collaboration with industry
partners via formal and informal channels of knowledge transfer. The review was conducted as
a series of keyword searches using universities and Business Schools’ websites and their
strategic documents. Search terms were identified from the review of literature and initial
analysis of the government policy documents, and included the following terms used to explain
UIC and knowledge transfer: ‘STEM’, ‘industry’, ‘knowledge transfer’, ‘interdisciplinary’,
‘multidisciplinary’, ‘incubator’, ‘hub’, ‘commercialisation’, ‘partnerships’, ‘scholarships’,
‘funding schemes’, ‘start-up’, ‘relationships’, ‘contract research’, and ‘integration’.
The extensive dataset gathered from the initial keywords search were recorded into an Excel
spreadsheet and reviewed by all authors for their relevance to the study. At this stage, it was
important to eliminate sources of data not addressing the scope of our research. That is, we
included only data related to transfer channels that explicitly focus on STEM-Business
knowledge and established UIC, therefore, ignoring general strategy statements about a “focus
on STEM” or “industry engagement” without a tangible outcome and link to practice. Another
exclusion criterion was related to our primary focus on Business Schools. Hence, we excluded
findings from other university departments, both STEM (e.g., engineering) or non-STEM
(education). Thus, we were able to investigate how Universities and their Business Schools
have responded to the pressures to develop and grow STEM areas and identify how the
universities incorporated these areas into U-I knowledge transfer channels. As a final step, we
went to each university and Business School’s website individually to check whether any
relevant data had been missed.
Data were collected and analysed gradually in stages. First, we selected four universities from
our sample (two Go8 and two ATN universities) and searched broadly for key terms used by
these educational institutions to refer to the U-I knowledge transfer, and government funding
8
related to STEM. This stage helped us confirm the themes identified previously and added
further ones across both university and Business School levels, such as ‘research centres and
laboratories’, ‘industry mentoring’, ‘research internships’, ‘collaborative Ph.D.’,
‘transdisciplinary funding platform’, ‘industry research projects’ and ‘industry mentoring’. We
then organised the themes based on their relevance to informal or formal knowledge transfer.
This step was important to ensure that all knowledge channels categorised under identified
themes involved a knowledge-link to the industry. We additionally coded terms referring to
three types of knowledge transfer direction (from university to industry; from industry to
university; and two-way) and cross-referenced them with formal and informal knowledge
transfer channels. These categories were then used to analyse the remaining documents and
reports published in print or on websites of industry bodies and the remaining six universities in
our sample.
While a quantitative approach is often used in the analysis of documents, instead of reporting
the occurrence of certain terms, we aimed to explain in-depth the relationships between the
STEM agenda articulated by the government and the universities’ and Business Schools’
responses. Hence, qualitative data analysis and attending to relationships between terms was a
suitable technique for our study. We identified themes (Tracy, 2013) that helped us to
categorise and explain how the detailed explanations provided in the reports on University and
Business School initiatives concerning collaboration with industry partners and channels of
knowledge transfer were linked to the STEM focus and priority of government funding sources.
We present our analysis of the data in the findings section below.
FINDINGS
Our findings are presented in two main sections. First, we discuss university and Business
School level approaches to the integration of a STEM focus at a strategic level. Secondly, we
examine how the sampled universities and their Business Schools have implemented a STEM
focus into their U-I knowledge transfer channels.
Strategic responses of Australian Universities to STEM priorities
As highlighted earlier, the government plays a significant role in the operations of Australian
universities. Therefore, we first analysed the strategic responses of the sampled Australian
universities and Business Schools to the government’s STEM agenda, drawing on strategy
9
statements, including mission and vision, espoused in various public documents, such as annual
and strategic reports.
At the university level, we observed differences in the ways and extent to which strategic
reports and statements reflect engagement with the STEM agenda. Some universities such as
Curtin University (Curtin), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), and University of
South Australia (UniSA), explicitly mention a STEM focus in their strategic reports (e.g. annual
reports, strategic plans). Others, including RMIT, University of Sydney (USyd) and University
of Western Australia (UWA) do not mention STEM explicitly, but do emphasise the
importance of interdisciplinary research.
The remainder of the sample, comprising the University of Technology Sydney (UTS),
University of Queensland (UQ), University of Adelaide (UniAde), and University of Melbourne
(UniMelb) do not mention STEM explicitly, nor do they indirectly refer to a STEM agenda in
their strategic statements. Interestingly, in their 2017 annual report, UniMelb addresses the
uncertainty of government funding and highlights the focus of diversifying their income to
ensure independence. Although these universities do not explicitly acknowledge a STEM
agenda, this should not be taken to suggest they do not engage with STEM practices.
All of the sampled universities were found to have general strategies concerning STEM,
although there were differences in particular practices. The common areas among all
universities are ‘STEM for Minorities’ and ‘STEM for Education’. The purpose of the ‘STEM
for Minorities’ initiatives is to improve the participation of under-represented groups in STEM
areas involving women, girls, low-income earners, and Indigenous communities. An example of
this commitment is ‘Athena Swan in Australia’ – the award that aims to increase the levels of
gender equity and diversity in STEMM (STEM and Medicines) disciplines in higher education
and research.
Furthermore, Australian universities are willing partners in achieving the government’s targets
and have increased their engagement and partnerships with schools to develop the skills of
school students and teachers in STEM fields and to encourage their participation in STEM
careers. In addition to these practices, UniSA and USyd have allocated grants to encourage
student engagement with research and practices in STEM-focussed areas. USyd also has a
centre called The Warren Centre that teaches leadership in engineering, technology and
innovation areas.
At the Business School level, there is varied engagement with, and emphasis on the STEM 10
fields in strategy documents or public statements. Six of the sampled Business Schools (QUT,
UniMelb, UQ, Curtin, UWA and UniAde) had no reference to the STEM fields within their
strategy statements. While RMIT’s College of Business goes as far as to refer to the
University’s strategic statements presenting RMIT as a “global university of technology and
design” (RMIT, 2018), the UTS, USyd and UniSA Business Schools explicitly refer to a STEM
focus in their business-level strategy documents.
UTS Business School exhibits a clear focus on the STEM fields, evidenced in both a “Message
from the Dean” and also in the “Business School Report”. In both documents, the Dean
explicitly mentions the fact that UTS is a technology-focussed university, hence the presence of
STEM fields across all university faculties is integral to its identity. Likewise, the USyd
Business School highlights the instrumental role of technology and the fact that technical
knowledge – “artificial intelligence, smart machines and robotics” – is an inherent part of the
knowledge of top managers (Whitwell, 2015, p.3). Finally, UniSA Business School highlights
their collaboration with STEM faculties. Specifically, the Business School Division Brochure
lists the importance of business fields which are combined with STEM research fields, citing
examples such as “transforming agriculture with water economics”, “driving tech-based
incubation” and the “neuroscience of good advertising” (UniSA, 2018).
Integration of STEM into U-I knowledge transfer
Drawing from the literature on knowledge transfer mechanisms, we categorise our findings on
integration of STEM into UIC under two dimensions: (1) formal vs. informal channels of
knowledge transfer; and (2) direction of transfer (university to industry; industry to university;
or two-way). Table 2 summarises the formal and informal channels of UI knowledge transfer at
both the university and Business School level.
---INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
---Notes (Table 2): Uni: University levelBus: Business School level♦♦♦: this channel involves the Business school but operates at the university levelEst.: Year of establishmentUI: University to Industry knowledge transferIU: Industry to University knowledge transfer↔: Two-way knowledge transfer between University and Industry
11
At the broader university level, we find the use of three formal channels for STEM knowledge
transfer: research centres, incubators, and contract-based research and commercialisation.
As highlighted in Table 2, research centres are the most common channel of knowledge transfer
used by the universities in our study. Out of the ten universities, seven use this channel to
transfer knowledge. Some universities and research centres engage only in one-way knowledge
transfer from university to industry and outline their objective to deliver research outcomes to
improve industry practices in STEM-related areas. Other university research centres engage in
two-way knowledge transfer, through partnerships with industry to conduct mutually agreed
research, or obtaining funding from industry partners for research projects. It is important to
note that some research centres have been established recently, which could reflect the
universities’ increasing engagement with the government’s STEM agenda in their U-I
knowledge transfer channels.
Incubators are another formal channel of knowledge transfer at the university level, found in
seven of the ten sampled universities. The purposes of these incubators vary but mostly focus
on providing funding, skills, knowledge and professional support for idea developments and
start-ups. Although these incubators are not exclusively for STEM projects, many projects are
related to STEM areas, especially technology. Most of these incubators have a two-way
direction of knowledge transfer: receiving start-up resources from the universities, and gaining
support from industry partners regarding knowledge and funding for these incubators. Similar
to research centres, most of these incubators have been established recently.
The last formal channel of knowledge transfer implemented at the university level is contract-
based research and commercialisation, found in three out of the ten sampled universities.
Through this channel, universities aim to market their research outcomes that are typically
practice-oriented and also to conduct consulting and research contracts for industries. In so
doing, the universities are demonstrating their entrepreneurial nature and attempting to address
the government funding cuts they are facing.
In addition to the formal channels, our study identified various informal channels of U-I
knowledge transfer used by the Australian universities in this study, including industry
mentoring, internships and industry talks and projects. These channels demonstrate knowledge
transfer across three directions: from university to industry, industry to university and two-way.
However, most tend to be from industry to university. The first example of these informal
channels is industry mentoring for university students in STEM areas. Three universities follow
12
this practice, whereas two of the universities also offer internships in STEM areas as
opportunities for students to gain real work experience or work on industry research projects.
Universities also play a role in transferring knowledge from industry to the education sector as
in the case of UniSA and UniMelb. For example, industry partners work with UniSA to provide
real-world STEM examples to support teachers in school teaching, and Google Australia
supports UniMelb in their STEM Education for schools’ program. Industry talks and projects
are also channels for universities to increase their engagement with STEM-related professions,
as undertaken by QUT. Universities also offer facilities that industry partners can access, for
example, the Living Lab at UniMelb provides exhibitions and experiences in STEM industries.
At the Business School level, formal channels for STEM knowledge transfer included research
centres and incubators, thus not dissimilar from the university level. The business level research
centres tool various forms – some centres are formed in direct collaborations with STEM
faculties within the university, and others are a result of collaborations with already established
transdisciplinary experts. One example of a direct collaboration is the Centre for Business and
Social Innovation at UTS Business School. The Centre consists of staff from Business, Health,
Engineering and IT, Science, and Design, Architecture and Building faculties. Similarly, the
Institute of Transport and Logistics at the USyd Business School collaborates with the Centre
for Robotics and Intelligent Systems and Centre for Excellence in Advanced Food Enginomics.
In some instances, Business Schools have tapped into the transdisciplinary knowledge of their
experts to develop new research centres that allow business schools to use their specific
knowledge base and combine it with STEM-related knowledge to offer new programs in Health
Economics (UTS, RMIT, UQ Business Schools) or Applied Finance (UniSA, UTS Business
Schools).
In addition to research centres, several Business Schools from our sampled universities have
introduced tech-based incubators. The incubators provide resources to various stakeholders,
such as entrepreneurs, students, and industry experts. The incubators at UniMelb, USyd, UQ,
and UniAde are embedded at the Business School level. For example, the tech-based incubator
Xelarite is embedded within the Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre of
The Faculty of Professions, which includes the Adelaide Business School. Other universities
tend to tap into the knowledge of the Business School to provide additional research stream. For
example, the Innovation and Collaboration Centre is a university-wide incubator where UniSA
Business School contributes to entrepreneurial skills and business growth. This incubator also
13
involves DXC Technology which is a private industry partner and allows for the efficient
pooling of interdisciplinary knowledge. These examples highlight the nature of the relationships
that Business Schools in Australia are forging to highlight their relevance to the changing
nature of technology and innovation-based emphasis on STEM areas.
Along with formal channels of STEM knowledge transfer between Business Schools and
industry, we also identified several informal channels: transdisciplinary research platforms,
collaborative Ph.D. programs and training programs with industry engagement. The first of
these, in the form of transdisciplinary research platforms, exist at both UniSA and RMIT
Business Schools. These platforms serve to provide opportunities for interdisciplinary
collaborations between faculties. RMIT Business School, for example, has initiated the
Enabling Capability Platform with a focus on selected inter-disciplinary clusters (for example,
Biomedical and Health Innovation). These transdisciplinary projects, which tend to be based on
areas of relevance to practice or industry partners, can also be converted into funded Ph.D.
projects. The final informal channel is represented by interdisciplinary training programs within
the Business Schools. One example is the RMIT Business School, which offers a program in
Engineering Management that is designed to prepare the future business leaders of tech-based
firms to combine the knowledge of strategic thinking and technological expertise. Links with
industry are formed during the program through membership in the Program Advisory
Committee, which involves graduates, practitioners, and students.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Our findings on the integration of a STEM focus into the U-I knowledge transfer channels of
Business Schools are aligned with the contextual challenges created by the Australian
government’s STEM agenda. Excluding Curtin, all Business Schools in our study implemented
some U-I STEM knowledge transfer channels. Moreover, many of these channels have been
recently established, which may signal the strategic responses of Business Schools towards the
STEM agenda.
We illustrate the interdependent relationships between universities, industry, and government
and highlight the formal and informal knowledge transfer channels used in UIC (see Figure 1).
---INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
---
14
Australian universities are ranked among the best educational institutions in the world and have
historically engaged with industry to transfer knowledge. This collaboration has been
acknowledged by accreditation bodies, with 9 out of the 10 universities in our sample being
accredited by at least one of the two main accrediting bodies (AACSB and EQUIS). However,
Australia’s innovation ranking against OECD countries remains poor and highlights the
country’s widening gap in STEM-related knowledge. As highlighted earlier in the paper, only a
small percentage of R&D firms engage with Australian universities, prompting the Australian
government to increase funding for STEM-related research and education in schools, while
reducing the overall funding allocation for the university sector. Industry firms have also
suggested that collaboration with universities would need to consider the skills needed in the
future for technology-driven jobs related to innovation. We find that Business Schools in
Australia have responded to these funding challenges and concerns raised by industry partners
by increasing their collaboration with external industry partners and internally with STEM-
related faculties via interdisciplinary research. Figure 1 highlights the formal and informal
channels used by Australian universities and their Business Schools to engage with the industry
and transfer knowledge. The formal channels of using research centres and incubators are found
at both the university and Business School level. However, universities also use
commercialisation of new research as a way to improve their financial standing, which can be
difficult for the social sciences faculties such as Business Schools.
Regarding informal channels, the use of industry mentoring, WIL based internship programs,
and industry talks and projects were commonly used by universities to transfer knowledge. The
Business Schools in contrast attempt to access the limited funding pool by forming
transdisciplinary research platforms, undertaking collaborative Ph.D. programs, and
undertaking training programs for industry partners. These strategic initiatives by the Business
Schools not only help highlight their relevance to current and future business practices, but the
continued engagement with industry allows them to understand the needs of their stakeholder
and respond accordingly in the content and the way education is imparted to students who are
preparing for the jobs of the future.
This study has a number of implications for universities, Business Schools, and policymakers
both in Australia and other countries. First, at the governance level, universities could enhance
their role in facilitating the involvement of Business Schools in STEM knowledge transfer by
promoting transdisciplinary collaboration between Business Schools and other STEM faculties.
15
While government priorities are aligned to STEM areas, universities and Business Schools alike
have responded, pushing the vital role of Business Schools as a facilitator for STEM
disciplines, including their ability to add value by bringing business knowledge which can
increase the efficiency and marketability of the service provided and the human resource of the
universities. Therefore, by engaging Business Schools, universities can improve the
effectiveness of both STEM and non-STEM faculties, thus boosting the entire system.
Second, we suggest that Business Schools should improve their links not only with other STEM
faculties but also with industry partners. Business Schools should think strategically about their
engagement with industry partners in STEM fields through both formal and informal
knowledge transfer channels. For example, through incubators and research centres, Business
Schools could cooperate with industry partners to solve real-life business issues and offer
market solutions for them, which could improve their financial independence. Also, providing
opportunities for business students to engage with STEM-related industry partners through
internships, mentorship programs or industry projects could be beneficial for both industry and
the university.
Lastly, as we identified in the model, government or policymakers play a critical role in U-I
knowledge transfer. Our findings demonstrate that Business Schools can collaborate with other
knowledge disciplines to engage with and add value to industry firms. The creation of
knowledge science parks in Australia that facilitate the interaction between industry and
different university faculties could provide the platform for engagement and could be the
impetus for innovative thinking aimed at finding solutions for current and future challenges
(Díez-Vial & Montoro-Sánchez, 2016; Pinto, Fernandez-Esquinas, & Uyarra, 2015).
This study has explored the strategic responses and specific practices related to U-I knowledge
transfer of 10 Australian universities and their Business Schools in response to the
Government’s STEM agenda. We acknowledge as a limitation that this study is based on
publicly available information, and therefore we present an understanding of published
strategies and practices around U-I knowledge transfer concerning the national STEM agenda.
In order to progress our understanding of these practices, including the underlying rationales
and any responses that are still in progress, future research would benefit from the conduct of
interviews with relevant university and Business School representatives with involvement or
responsibility for the development of these strategies and practices. Additionally, this research
was limited to Business Schools and there is an opportunity to compare with the experiences of,
16
and strategies employed by managers in other non-STEM faculties. Therefore, future research
could seek to widen the sample, not only in terms of additional Australian universities and other
non-STEM faculties, but also including institutions from other countries in order to conduct a
comparative analysis of how different national research and funding agendas prompt strategic
responses from universities, and specific practices in their U-I knowledge transfer efforts.
REFERENCES
AACSB. (2018). Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Retrieved 28 July from https://www.aacsb.edu.
ACARA. (2016). ACARA STEM Connections Project Report Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.
Agarwal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), pp. 285-302.
Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), pp. 387-408.
Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2-3), pp. 50-65.
AQF. (2018). Australian Qualifications Framework. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.aqf.edu.au.
Arenas, J. J., & González, D. (2018). Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 8(2 Article No. 19 )
Austrade. (2018). Why Australia. Benchmark Report: Australian Trade and Investment Commission.
Australian Government. (2018a). Australian Government response to Innovation and Science Australia’s Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation. Canberra.
Australian Government. (2018b). State and territory government. Retrieved from https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works/state-and-territory-government.
Australian Technology Network. (2018). Our Universities. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.atn.edu.au/about-us/our-universities/.
Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76-77(August-September), pp. 51-63.
Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, pp. 1837-1853.
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), pp. 858-868.
Cheng, H., Zhang, Z., Huang, Q., & Liao, Z. (2018). The effect of university–industry 17
collaboration policy on universities’ knowledge innovation and achievements transformation: based on innovation chain. The Journal of Technology Transfer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9653-9
Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). National Innovation and Science Agenda Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Deloitte Access Economics. (2014). Australia’s STEM workforce: a survey of employers ACT, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist.
Department of Education and Training - Australian Government. (2018). Higher education sector. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-0.
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50-51(April-May), pp. 41-52.
Education Council. (2018). Optimising STEM Industry-School Partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s Next Generation Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
Edwards, D., Perkins, K., Pearce, J., & Hong, J. (2015). Work Integrated Learning in STEM in Australian Universities: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Emmel, N. (2014). Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach London: Sage.
EQUIS. (2018). European Quality Improvement System. Retrieved 28 July from https://efmdglobal.org/accreditations/business-schools/equis/.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, pp. 109-123.
EY. (2018). Can the universities of today lead learning for tomorrow? The University of the Future: Ernst & Young Australia.
Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., Rutten, R., & Varga, A. (2013). Cooperation, Clusters, and Knowledge Transfer – Universities and Firms towards Regional Competitiveness: Springer.
Fischer, B. B., Schaeffer, P. R., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. (2018). Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), pp. 263-284.
Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2015). University–industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 36(April-June), pp. 41-51.
Frunzaru, V., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Gazzola, P., & Bolisani, E. (2018). Challenges to higher education in the knowledge economy: anti-intellectualism, materialism and employability. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(3), pp. 388-401.
Group of Eight Australia. (2018). Member information. Retrieved 10 July from https://go8.edu.au/page/member-information.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), pp. 551-563.
Guo, Y., Jasovska, P., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2018). Global mobility of professionals and the transfer of tacit knowledge in multinational service firms. Journal of Knowledge
18
Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2017-0399
Guthrie, J. (2017). How Australian universities must change in a digital world. AcuityMag, 11 October.
Hermans, J., & Castiaux, A. (2017). Contingent knowledge transfers in university–industry R&D projects. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(1), pp. 68-77.
Innovation and Science Australia. (2017). Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation. A plan for Australia to thrive in the global innovation race: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government.
Kaklauskas, A., Banaitis, A., Ferreira, F. A. F., Ferreira, J. J. M., Amaratunga, D., Lepkova, N., Ubartė, I., & Banaitienė, N. (2018). An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities. Sustainability, 10(1 Article No. 119)
Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, p 1011.
Karp, P. (2018). $2.2bn funding cut to universities 'a cap on opportunity for all'. The Guardian, 28 February
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a Resource Base for Competitive Advantage: University–Industry Links for Technology Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), pp. 311-326.
Muscio, A., & Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived Obstacles to University–Industry Collaboration: Results from a Qualitative Survey of Italian Academic Departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), pp. 410-429.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop and the European Commission.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National Interest: A Strategic Approach Canberra: Australian Government.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pinto, H., Fernandez-Esquinas, M., & Uyarra, E. (2015). Universities and Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) as Sources of Knowledge for Innovative Firms in Peripheral Regions. Regional Studies, 49(11), pp. 1873-1891.
Piterou, A., & Birch, C. (2014). The role of Higher Education Institutions in supporting innovation in SMEs: university-based incubators and student internships as knowledge transfer tools. InImpact: The Journal of Innovation Impact:, 7(1), pp. 72-79.
Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2010). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), pp. 231-255.
QUT. (2018). QUT leaves ATN. Retrieved 29 September from https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=136330.
Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration:
19
Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62-63, pp. 42-54.
RMIT. (2018). Home Page. Retrieved 2018 from https://www.rmit.edu.au/.
Scandura, A. (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy, 45(9), pp. 1907-1922.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), pp. 111-133.
Soh, P.-H., & Subramanian, A. M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), pp. 807-821.
Study in Australia - Australian Government. (2018a). List of Australian Universities. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/australian-education/universities-and-higher-education/list-of-australian-universities.
Study in Australia - Australian Government. (2018b). TEQSA. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/australian-education/universities-and-higher-education.
Times Higher Education. (2018). World University Rankings 2019. Retrieved 27 September from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/1/length/25/locations/AU/subjects/3096/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
UniSA. (2018). Business School Division Brochure. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia (UniSA) Business School.
Universities Australia. (2018a). Innovation plan will rely on a strong university sector. Universities Australia Media Release, 30 January
Universities Australia. (2018b). University Profiles. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/university-profiles#.W685DC97HVo.
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), pp. 491-531.
Whitwell, G. (2015). Our Strategic Intent 2016-2020: Business Not as Usual Sydney, NSW: The University of Sydney Business School.
Wright, S. (2018). Funds warning to unis over lack of STEM teachers. Perth Now, 9 July
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.
20
Table 1: Overview of Sample Australian Universities
Name of University
Year of University
Status
Group of 8 (G08) or
Australian Technology
Network (ATN)
World University Ranking
AACSB and/or EQUIS
accreditation of Business
School
Location of University
University of Sydney (USyd)
1850 Go8 59 AACSB and EQUIS
New South Wales
University of Melbourne (UniMelb)
1853 Go8 32 AACSB and EQUIS
Victoria
University of Adelaide (UniAde)
1874 Go8 135 AACSB South Australia
University of Queensland (UQ)
1909 Go8 69 AACSB and EQUIS
Queensland
The University of Western Australia (UWA)
1911 Go8 134 AACSB and EQUIS
Western Australia
Curtin University (Curtin)
1986 ATN 301-350 AACSB Western Australia
University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
1988 ATN 196 AACSB New South Wales
Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
1989 ATN* 201-250 AACSB and EQUIS
Queensland
University of South Australia (UniSA)
1991 ATN 201-250 EQUIS South Australia
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)
1992 ATN 401-500 none Victoria
Notes: * QUT left ATN on 28 September 2018 (QUT, 2018). Since the data for QUT was collected before the university’s departure from the ATN, we have included it within the group.
University ranking data sourced from Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 (Times Higher Education, 2018). Other data sourced from (Australian Technology Network, 2018; Group of Eight 21
Australia, 2018; Universities Australia, 2018b).
22
Table 2: Formal and informal channels of University-Industry knowledge transfer
Formal channels Informal channels
University of Technology Sydney
Uni
STEM Education Futures Research Centre (est. 2018)
UTS Hatchery – incubator (est. 2016)
UI
↔
Industry Mentoring in STEM Research internships Australian
Mathematical Sciences Institute
IUIU
Bus
Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE) (est. 1991)
Centre for Business and Social Innovation (CBSI) (est. 2017)
Business Intelligence and Data Analysis (BIDA) (est. 2017)
Quantitative Finance Research Centre
UI
UI
UI
↔
University of South Australia
Uni
STEM facilities - Future Industries Institute (FII)
Teaching for Tomorrow Program – School of Education (industry practitioners and STEM)
UI
IU
Bus
Innovation and Collaboration Centre (ICC) – tech-based incubation (est. 2015)
Venture Catalyst – incubator UniSA Ventures – technology-
based incubation ♦♦♦ Institute of Choice Centre for Applied Finance and
Economics Centre for Sustainability
Governance
↔
↔↔
↔UI
UI
Collaborative Ph.D. – interdisciplinary ♦♦♦ Research Themes – transdisciplinary
research funding scheme ♦♦♦
UIUI
RMITUni RMIT Activator – incubator UI STEM internship fair ↔
Bus Blockchain Innovation Hub Health Economics Group
↔UI
Enabling Capability Platform –transdisciplinary research centre ♦♦♦
Program: Engineering Management
UI
UICurtin University
Uni
STEM Education Research Group (under the school of Education)
Resources and Chemistry Precinct Curtin Health Innovation Research
Institute (CHIRI) Biosciences Curtin Accelerate (Incubator) Innovation Studio (Incubator)
↔
↔↔
↔IU
BusQueensland University of TechnologyUni Institute for Future Environments
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
QUT Starters (Incubator) (est. 2014)
QUT BlueBox (Incubator) (est. 2006)
QUT Creative Enterprise Australia
UIUI
IU
↔
↔
Industry talks and projects IU
23
(Incubator) (est. 2008) BusUniversity of Melbourne
Uni
Melbourne Interdisciplinary Research Institute (MIRI) with research from five institutes: Melbourne Energy Institute; Melbourne Networked Society Institute; Melbourne Neuroscience Institute; Melbourne Social Equity Institute; and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute. (est. 2009)
UI University Facility: Living lab STEM Educations for Schools STEM Industry Mentoring Program
UIIU↔
Bus
Centre for Actuarial Studies Melbourne Entrepreneurial Centre:
The Melbourne Accelerator ProgramTranslating Research at Melbourne (TR@M) program ♦♦♦
The Brain, Mind and Markets Laboratory (est. 2016)
The Decision Neuroscience Laboratory (est. 2012)
The Bayesian Analysis Modelling Research Group FIRN – the Financial Research
Network
↔↔
UI
UIUIUIUI
Melbourne Entrepreneurial Centre: Master of Entrepreneurship - Wade Institute
UI
University of Western Australia
Uni Research Development and Innovation
↔
Bus Research Centre: Centre for Safety (est. 2013)
↔
University of Sydney
Uni
HatchLab – Incubator (est.2016) Incubate – start-up accelerator Australian Centre for Innovation
(Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies, est.1992)
↔↔UI
Bus Sydney Genesis – start-up program Institute of Transport and Logistics
Studies (est.2008)
↔UI
University of Queensland
Uni
UniSeed – incubator UQ Idea-Hub – pre-incubator for
start-ups iLab – incubator Hype Spin Lab – for specific start-
ups UniQuest - commercialisation
↔↔
↔↔
↔
Bus
UQ Business Startup Academy Australian Institute for Business
and Economics Centre for the Business and
Economics of Health (est.2016) Business Sustainability Initiative
↔UI
UI
UIUniversity of AdelaideUni ThincLab (est. 2017) – incubator ↔ Industry Mentoring Program in the STEM IU
24
THINCubator – incubator Adelaide Enterprise – contract
research, commercialisation and licensing (est.2016)
Commercial Accelerator Scheme (Australian Institute for Machines and Learning, est. 2017)
↔↔
↔
(for Ph.D. students getting one-year mentoring from an industry expert; MedTech-Pharma and Energy-Minerals Resources)
Bus
Xelarite – industry accelerator ♦♦♦ Entrepreneurship,
Commercialisation and Innovation Centre (est.2001)
School of Architecture and Built Environment
Centre for Global Food and Resources
↔UI
UI
UI
Notes:
Uni: University level
Bus: Business School level
♦♦♦: this channel involves the Business school but operates at the university level
Est.: Year of establishment
UI: University to Industry knowledge transfer
IU: Industry to University knowledge transfer
↔: Two-way knowledge transfer between University and Industry
25
26