Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategies: a comparative positioning framework

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of major studies in the past ten years on university-industry knowledge transfer.

Author	Topic of study	Recommendations based on findings
Bekkers and Freitas (2008)	An examination of the knowledge transfer channels between universities and industries to assess the relative importance of different channels in different sectoral contexts.	The results suggest that the industrial activities of firms do not significantly explain differences in importance of a variety of channels through which knowledge is transmitted. The variety is better explained by disciplinary origin, characteristics of the underlying knowledge, characteristics of the researchers involved in producing and using the knowledge, and the environment in which the knowledge is produced and used.
de Wit-de Vries et al. (2018)	A systematic review of extant literature on university-industry research partnerships, with the purpose of identifying barriers and facilitators for the exchange.	Based on the reviewed literature, identified barriers to knowledge transfer are knowledge differences and differences in goals resulting from different institutional cultures. These barriers result in ambiguity, problems with knowledge absorption and difficulties in applying the knowledge. Facilitators to knowledge transfer are trust, communication, the use of intermediaries and experience, which all assist in resolving the identified barriers.
Perkmann et al. (2013)	A systematic review of academic engagement in research collaborations for university-industry knowledge transfer.	Academic engagement is closely aligned with traditional academic research activities and distinct from commercialization. Academics pursue these collaborative opportunities to access resources which would support their research agendas. Policy interventions are suggested.
Plewa et al. (2013)	A qualitative study on research commercialization which examines the dynamic nature of university-industry linkages.	Proposes a descriptive framework of drivers for successful university-industry linkages, accompanied by the respective phases linked to the evolution of the relationship.
Pinto et al. (2015)	Assessing universities and knowledge intensive business services as sources of knowledge for innovative firms in peripheral regions.	Knowledge intensive business services do not demonstrate a higher propensity to interact with universities in peripheral regions. Absorptive capacity is a critical dimension in interactions, with evidence of knowledge circulation during these interactions.
Schofield (2013)	Systematic literature review of university-industry collaborations and subsequent quantitative study to identify drivers and barriers for successful collaborations.	A framework is presented with seven enablers and seven barriers to effective collaborations. Enablers include alignment of research objectives as well as senior management support. Barriers include institutional bureaucracy, lack of incentives and complex information flow and logistics.

Figure 1. Knowledge transfer strategy delineation, as adapted from von Krogh et al. (2001).

Table 2. Overview of the data used for the analysis.

Author	Objective of Study	Method and Sample	Predominant Knowledge Transfer Strategy
Developed Region (Canada)
The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal (2011)	A research report on Canadian university-industry collaboration.	Online survey with a sample size of 402 respondents.	Appropriating and Leveraging
Kneller, Mongeon, Cope, Garner, and Ternouth (2014)	To assess industry-university collaborations to understand how companies benefit from these collaborations, and to gauge how academic discoveries benefit all stakeholders: companies, universities and the public.	Case study analysis of interviews with 20 Canadian companies.	Appropriating
Roshani, Lehoux, and Frayret (2015)	To propose a framework for establishing mutually beneficial open-innovation collaborations between universities and industry.	Case study analysis and interviews with academics and industries.	Appropriating
Transition Region (Malta)
Davey, Baaken, Muros, and Meerman (2011)	Best case studies of good practice in the area of University-Business cooperation within Europe.	Case study analysis.	Leveraging
Cunningham and Link (2015)	To explore the cross-country differences in the extent to which universities collaborate with business in R&D in Europe.	Quantitative analysis of secondary data.	Leveraging
Georghiou, Uyarra, Scerri, Castillo, and Harper (2014)	An assessment of the smart specialisation strategy which was developed for Malta.	Case study approach to evaluate the strategy that was followed.	Leveraging
Developing Region (South Africa)
Kruss and Visser (2017)	To examine the university-industry interaction practices of universities in South Africa.	Survey among 2159 academics at South African universities.	Appropriating
Petersen, Kruss, and Lorentzen (2008)	To assess how and why relationships between universities and firms differ across countries and regions at different stages of economic development, and across sectors.	Quantitative and descriptive analysis of secondary survey data.	Appropriating
Kruss, Adeoti, and Nabudere (2012)	To assess the contribution of university-firm interaction for knowledge development in South Africa.	Quantitative and descriptive analysis of secondary survey data.	Appropriating and Leveraging

Table 3. An overview of social capital dimensions present.

Social Capital Dimensions	Developed Region (Canada)	Transition Region (Malta)	Developing Region (South Africa)
Structural
Network ties	Strong network ties, both formal and informal.	Strong and closely-knit network ties, due to interconnectivity of network members to formal University Research Parks.	Inter-member ties are weak and interaction is relatively low and disconnected.
Network configuration	Systems- and structure focused.	Hierarchical and bureaucratic, runs the risk of high density, which may inhibit the ease of knowledge transfer.	Bureaucratic, impedes and restricts knowledge transfer.
Network stability	High rate of network stability.	High rate of network stability.	High rate of network instability, due to high level of political uncertainty.
Relational
Trust	Trust relationship managed through clearly defined roles with accompanying accountabilities.	Strong trust relationships.	High level of trust in established relationships, but reluctant to form new trust-based relationships based on perceived threat of opportunism.
Cognitive
Shared goals	Goals are clearly defined and aligned, but often not enforced.	Goals are wide-ranging and runs the risk of incompatibility.	Goals are both compatible and mostly mutually shared.
Shared culture	Culture of compatibility.	High level of cultural compatibility.	Mostly cultural tolerance, but declining research culture.
Overall Social Capital Score	High	Medium to High	Medium to Low

Figure 2. Social capital U-I knowledge transfer framework.

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(10), 1837–1853.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2018). Knowledge transfer in university-industry research partnerships: A review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., … Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–Industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of University–Industry linkages — A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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), 1873–1891.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schofield, T. (2013). Critical success factors for knowledge transfer collaborations between university and industry. Journal of Research Administration, 44(2), 38–56.

 Google Scholar

von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Aben, M. (2001). Making the most of your company’s knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Planning, 34, 421–439.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. (2011). A look at Canadian university-industry collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.ccmm.qc.ca/documents/activities_pdf/autres/2010_2011/ccmm_rdvssavoir_2011_en.pdf

 Google Scholar

Kneller, R, Mongeon, M, Cope, J, Garner, C, & Ternouth, P. (2014). Industry-university collaborations in canada, japan, the uk and usa–with emphasis on publication freedom and managing the intellectual property lock-up problem. Plos One, 9(3), e90302.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roshani, M, Lehoux, N, & Frayret, J. M. (2015). University-Industry collaborations and open innovations: an integrated methodology for mutually beneficial relationships. CIRRELT. [Working Paper 2015-22]. Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur les Réseaux d’Enterprise, la Logistique et le Transport – CIRRELT.

 Google Scholar

Davey, T, Baaken, T, Galan Muros, V, & Meerman, A. (2011). The State of European University-Business Cooperation. Part of the DG Education and Culture Study on the Cooperation between Higher Education Institutions and Public and Private Organisations in Europe 141. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 15(1), 65.

 Google Scholar

Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0317-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Georghiou, L, Elvira Uyarra, A, Saliba Scerri, R, Castillo, N, & Cassingena Harper, J. (2014). Adapting smart specialisation to a micro-economy – the case of malta. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 428-447.

 Google Scholar

Kruss, G, & Visser, M. (2017). Putting university–industry interaction into perspective: a differentiated view from inside south african universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 884-908. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9548-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petersen, I. H., Kruss, G., & Lorentzen, J. (2008). Innovation in sub-Saharan Africa: competitiveness, capability and achievements in South Africa, Nigeria and Uganda. [Project Number 103470-009]. Report prepared for the project, Knowledge for Development: university-industry interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa. HSRC. March. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/4902

 Google Scholar

Kruss, G, Adeoti, J, & Nabudere, D. (2012). Universities and knowledge-based development in sub-saharan africa: comparing university–firm interaction in nigeria, uganda and south africa. Journal Of Development Studies, 48(4), 516-530. doi:10.1080/00220388.2011.604410

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar