A systematic review of empirical studies on trust between universities and society

Figures & data

Figure 1. The review process.

Table 1. Overview of reviewed literature.

Category				%
Geographical location
Africa		14		5%
America - North		53		18%
America - South		9		3%
Asia - East & Southeast		50		17%
Asia - other		11		4%
Australia - NZ		26		9%
Europe		43		14%
Middle East		18		6%
UK		26		9%
Comparative		27		9%
Unspecified		20		7%
Method of study
Quantitative		169		57%
Qualitative		72		24%
Mixed		24		8%
Essay/Conceptual		27		9%
Literature review		5		2%
Type of trust relationship
Internal relationships		212		71%
Academics - academics		40		13%
Academics - learning environment		3		1%
Academics - university		17		6%
Academics - HE staff		18		6%
Students - academics		27		9%
Students - learning environment		31		10%
Students - students		16		5%
Students - university		60		20%
External relationships		85		29%
University - alumni		5		2%
University - community		5		2%
University - government		6		2%
University - industry partner		44		15%
University - public		16		5%
University - training partner		3		1%
University - university		6		2%
Total		297		100%

Table 2. Characteristics of trust.

Characteristics	Key findings
Reliability	Trust is about: Keeping promises/adhering to contract: e.g., ‘Knowledge and significant resources are likely to be transferred in relationships when trust is maintained without violation’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Maintaining frequent communication: e.g., re-iterating partnership commitments and shared visions (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Enabling assessment of partnership eligibilities, intentions, and attitudes of another stakeholder within the relationship and providing an array of opportunities for relevant stakeholders to develop strong network ties (Thomas & Paul, 2019). Repeated collaborations: demonstrate longer-term commitment (Azman et al., 2019); ‘firms that are involved in repeated R&D cooperation are considered competent and trust-worthy partners by external organisations. This in return contributes to their reputation as reliable and attractive research partners’ (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019, 1943).
Capability	Trust is about: Open to mutual learning: e.g., trust binds people together and allows the easy sharing of insights (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 444). Absorptiveness: able to recognise and apply new knowledge (Betts & Santoro, 2011; cited in Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; de Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, van der Windti, & Gerkema, 2019) Knowledge transfer skills: e.g., have a suite of formal and informal knowledge transfer mechanisms, approaches and styles to optimise absorptiveness (Geuna & Muscio, 2009). Effective communication skills: e.g., able to develop both formal and informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between organisations; able to ‘promotes the exchange of rich and valuable knowledge and innovation performance’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, 443–44). Negotiation skills: e.g., able to negotiate and reach consensus when partners have different goals; able to settle in good terms (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 444). Having strong stakeholder management skills: e.g., to ‘abstain from enacting specific control measures over knowledge spillovers’ (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; cited in Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Building the right structure and resource: e.g., universities need to provide sufficient financial and human resources to engage and build long-term relationships (Abbasnejad, Baerz, Rostamy, & Azar, 2011).
Integrity	Trust is about: Cooperativeness: willing to let go of competitive instinct; ‘Trust is part of collaborative know-how’ (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019, 1946); Highly competitive, opportunistic and exploitative practices risk distrust (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019). Building a culture of trust within the institution: e.g., a lack of shared purposes, goals, meaning and social conventions among the stakeholders could complicate collaboration (de Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, van der Windti, & Gerkema, 2019). Building shared visions and goals with the external stakeholders: e.g., University-Industry needs shared ‘objectives to work hand-in-hand to solve problems and exhibits the willingness to comprehend and accommodate behaviours to keep up with the expectations of the members’ (Abbasnejad, Baerz, Rostamy, & Azar, 2011; Azman et al., 2019; Bruneel, d’Este, & Salter, 2010; Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Time: e.g., academics need to put aside time to ‘gradually build trust’ (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443)
Benevolence	Trust is about: Valuing social capital: e.g., contributes to integrating industry into the scientific community and to establish trust and long-term links (Geuna & Muscio, 2009). Demonstrating ‘goodwill’: e.g., willing to transfer knowledge between the university and the firm (Thomas & Paul, 2019, p. 443). Prioritise relationship: e.g., ‘keeping the focus on the vision and the relationship and not letting the structural or operational difficulties wear down the partnership will increase the likelihood for success dramatically’ (Azman et al., 2019, p. 97). Consider broader impact: e.g., positive interpersonal trust could bring positive impact on organisational attitudes, behaviours and performance (Bellini, Piroli, & Pennacchio, 2019).

Thomas, A., & Paul, J. (2019). Knowledge transfer and innovation through university-industry partnership: An integrated theoretical view. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 436–448. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1552485

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bellini, E., Piroli, G., & Pennacchio, L. (2019). Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: Empirical evidence from ICT firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(6), 1939–1963. doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9655-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Azman, N., Sirat, M., Pang, V., Lai, Y.M., Govindasamy, A.R., & Din, W.A. (2019). Promoting university–industry collaboration in Malaysia: Stakeholders’ perspectives on expectations and impediments. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(1), 86–103. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2018.1538546

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Betts, S.C., & Santoro, M.D. (2011). Somewhere between markets and hierarchies: Controlling industry university relationships for success. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 19–44.

 Google Scholar

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W.A., van der Windti, H.J., & Gerkema, M.P. (2019, AUG). Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1236–1255. doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Inkpen, A.C., & Tsang, E.W.K. (2005). Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281445

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abbasnejad, T., Baerz, A.M., Rostamy, A.A.A., & Azar, A. (2011, DEC 14). Factors affecting on collaboration of industry with University. African Journal of Business Management, 5(32), 12401–12407. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.1274

 Google Scholar

Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Santoro, M.D., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). Relationship dynamics between university research centers and industrial firms: Their impact on technology transfer activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1/2), 163–171. doi:10.1023/a:1007804816426

 Google Scholar