The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications

Abstract

While it is common to claim that university reforms are based on universal and standardised ideas about 'modernising' the university, few studies have examined in a more coherent way how the combined external pressure for change with respect to the areas of education, research and innovation has affected the university. In this paper it is argued that one can identify three different sets of logics concerning the current external reform agenda, and that these logics together create new challenges as to how knowledge is created, diffused and governed by the university. In the conclusion, it is discussed whether the current pressure for reform might change the university as we know it, or whether new institutional translations might emerge from the process renewing the university while maintaining its identity.

Higher education reforms in Romania. Between the Bologna process and national challenges

“…Higher education represents a set of institutions through which high-level qualifications are provided following professional and academic training processes (Witte 2006;Maasen and Stensaker 2011). This set includes educational suppliers (higher education institutions), stakeholders (students, academic staff, parents, employers etc.…”

Knowledge Triangle Configurations at Three Swedish Universities

“…The KT may be manifested in a rhetorical or political way, or through the build-up of new structures and processes at the micro (individual or research groups), meso (faculty, departmental or organisational) or macro (national or international policy) levels. The KT builds on the assumption that connections are productive and thus should be strengthened; our starting point is instead that such linkages will be temporary and conditional in the multi-purpose setting that is inherent to modern contemporary universities [Maassen, Stensaker, 2011]. To our knowledge, only two scientific studies explore the three-way linkages between the corners of the KT on the level of individual researchers and teachers: Holmén and Ljungberg [Holmén, Ljungberg, 2016] find reinforcing spill-overs between the tasks, with research being the task that contributes most, and Sjoer et al [Sjoer et al, 2016] find that individual perceptions concerning the nature of a task is the main barrier impeding the creation of linkages.…”

“…Geschwind and Broström [Geschwind, Broström, 2015] provide evidence of a division of labour between staff, and Marsh and Hattie [Marsh, Hattie, 2002] demonstrate that there is no significant relationship between research productivity and teaching quality. The debated causes of the divide include the concentration of research and the actual cost-effectiveness of the division of labour at the individual and institution levels [Clark, 1997;Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Pinheiro et al, 2014]. Secondly, the link between research and innovation has been explored through studies of research collaboration [Sonnenwald, 2007;Bozeman, Boardman, 2014], university-industry interactions [Mansfield, 1998;Scott et al, 2001;Perkmann, Walsh, 2007;Perkmann et al, 2013], modes of knowledge production [Gibbons et al, 1994], the triple helix [Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff, 2000], the entrepreneurial university [Clark, 1998], the third mission of universities [Laredo, 2007;Pinheiro et al, 2015] and the position of universities in innovation systems [Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009;Jacobsson, Perez Vico, 2010].…”

“…Thirdly, and as to the education-innovation nexus, Holmén and Ljungberg [Holmén, Ljungberg, 2015] studied how experiences from innovation feed into education, and vice versa, albeit to a lesser extent. Other studies indicate that conflicting logic hampers this particular form of interaction: Maassen and Stensaker [Maassen, Stensaker, 2011] argue that the standardisation of academic programmes within Europe stands in contrast to ambitions of renewal and creativity, which could lead to a divergence of the two. This review reveals that linkages include both task combinations and mutually reinforcing spill-overs.…”

“…Although the value of linking research, education and innovation is well known, strengthening these ties has often proven challenging [Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Sjoer et al, 2016], revealing tensions between the different tasks and institutional levels [Pinheiro et al, 2014]. These tensions are to some extent inevitable, as the logic behind, and the incentive systems of, universities' tasks differ: education is place-bound and localised in its practices and reward systems; research is primarily valued according to its contributions to the international community, whereas innovation takes many different forms, from the tangible to the tacit.…”