A Typology of Research Training in University—Industry Collaboration

Abstract

<jats:p> This paper examines the educational implications of research collaboration between university and industry for the research training of doctoral students. It is concerned with the issues of how research training is constructed in such collaborations and what might be the effects of collaboration on doctoral students' learning. The study adopts a knowledge perspective. Three different dispositions of knowledge are identified: ‘expert’, ‘utilitarian’ and ‘commercialized’. Doctoral students' experiences were examined in relation to two aspects of research training – industrial involvement in supervision and academic freedom – in university–industry collaboration in the field of life sciences. Thirty-five in-depth interviews were carried out at BioCity Turku in Finland with 16 doctoral students, 14 of their supervisors and 5 PhD graduates. Four major types of PhD research collaboration were discovered, characterized as ‘Financial’, ‘Interactive’, ‘Kangaroo’ and ‘Appendant’. The significance of each type is discussed in relation to different knowledge dispositions. Drawing on the research findings, suggestions are offered for constructing successful research training programmes through university–industry collaboration. </jats:p>

Industry–university collaboration in industrial doctorates: A trouble-free marriage?

“…Data confidentiality versus the academic dissemination of results stood out with great emphasis in the analysis. As acknowledged in the literature, the different knowledge dispositions of the two cultures (Chiang, 2011) – universities being more oriented towards dissemination, open science, sharing and the public good, and companies being more oriented towards commercialisation, profit, competitiveness and secrecy – clash despite the assumed collaborative nature of the doctorate. Therefore, the mission-oriented and contract-related barriers (Azman et al, 2019) were evident in students’ experiences:I think that this is related with what was said earlier about data protection.…”

“…While it is recognised that a key component of the engagement between universities and companies is knowledge (Chiang, 2011), the two cultures are considered to have different knowledge dispositions. Universities have, according to Chiang (2011), an expert knowledge disposition, which means that academics are concerned with knowledge dissemination, publishing, peer recognition, reputation, academic freedom, independence, open science, public good, basic and upstream research, discovery, openness and sharing.…”

“…While it is recognised that a key component of the engagement between universities and companies is knowledge (Chiang, 2011), the two cultures are considered to have different knowledge dispositions. Universities have, according to Chiang (2011), an expert knowledge disposition, which means that academics are concerned with knowledge dissemination, publishing, peer recognition, reputation, academic freedom, independence, open science, public good, basic and upstream research, discovery, openness and sharing. In contrast, companies have a commercialised knowledge disposition (Chiang, 2011), mainly focusing on applied and downstream research, profit, end products and secrecy to protect their own commercial interests and preserve their competitiveness in the market (Chiang, 2011).…”

“…Universities have, according to Chiang (2011), an expert knowledge disposition, which means that academics are concerned with knowledge dissemination, publishing, peer recognition, reputation, academic freedom, independence, open science, public good, basic and upstream research, discovery, openness and sharing. In contrast, companies have a commercialised knowledge disposition (Chiang, 2011), mainly focusing on applied and downstream research, profit, end products and secrecy to protect their own commercial interests and preserve their competitiveness in the market (Chiang, 2011). In this commercialised knowledge disposition, the value of knowledge is judged on the basis of its potential financial profitability, which leads to secrecy within a closed scientific system.…”

Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management for Public to Private Knowledge Transfer

“…Examples include the Engineering Research Center program in the United States, which must include educational components (Bozeman & Boardman, 2004), and collaborative educational programs in Europe (Borrell-Damian et al, 2010). The majority of the studies still focus on the implications or impacts of industrial collaboration on graduate education and students themselves (Behrens & Gray, 2001;Harman, 2002;Kolmos, Kofoed & Du, 2008), but studies have become increasingly specific and at present focus on the impact of industrial collaboration on the type of knowledge produced (Chiang, 2011) and more positive attitudes towards industrial R&D and careers with industry (Kay, 2004).…”