Putting university-industry
interaction into perspective: a view
from inside South African
universities
Glenda Kruss
IndiaLICS Training Programme
Thiruvananthapuram, India
Social science that makes a difference
15 March 2016
The problem
• Firms and economic policy makers need an enhanced
understanding of what universities value and how they
interact, to increase knowledge and technology flows
• Literature on UILs focus: university-related incentives
and barriers, in context of Europe and USA (Perkman et
al 2013)
• But immature systems of innovation in late developing
countries, such as SA?
• Face dual challenge of linking to global science and
addressing local social and economic problems
• Local resource conditions, legacy of colonisation,
racial segregation, inequality, poverty
• Universities expected to play multiple roles, combine
balance
Social scienceand
that makes
a differencein diverse ways
The research aim
• => Situate university-industry linkages within the total
pattern of interaction with external actors, in diverse
types of university across a national system of innovation
• Contribute to literature:
• Extend empirical coverage beyond US /Europe
• Demonstrate why it is important to take the
heterogeneity of universities and HE systems in
different country contexts into account, to identify
barriers and incentives
Social science that makes a difference
The research framework
• Cohen, Nelson and Walsh (2002): patterns of interaction - firm
survey of type of relationship, channels of interaction, benefits and
constraints
• Albuquerque et al (2015): patterns in 12 middle and low income
countries in the global South – firm and university survey
• Kruss et al (2012): patterns with full range of partners (government,
informal sector, community, civil society); research and innovation,
teaching and outreach roles
• Drivers of interaction: financial and intellectual
• Shape forms of interaction: service, traditional, network and
commercialisation
• Universities as reputationally controlled work organisations in
competitive higher education systems (Whitley 2003)
Social science that makes a difference
Research questions
• What is intensity of reputational competition in immature
NIS in SA?
• What is frequency and forms of academic engagement
in different types of university(nature of partners, type of
relationship, outcomes)?
• Frequency and forms of interaction with FIRMS?
• How do patterns reflect balance between financial and
intellectual imperatives?
• What are the policy insights for understanding incentives
and barriers to interaction with firms?
Social science that makes a difference
Design and methodology
• Case studies of 5 universities of distinct types: 2 Research, 1
Technology, 1 Comprehensive, 1 Rural
• Survey of individual academics’ interactive practices:
• Telephonic interview using CATI tool, training for callers
• 62% average response rate
• 2 159 responses
• Sample distribution matched gender, race, academic rank trends
of each university population
• Documentary and interview qualitative data on institutional history,
mission, policy and culture, to interpret patterns
• Engagement with universities: input to design, data analysis,
workshops with strategic insights
Social science that makes a difference
Data analysis challenge
• Likert scale: 1(not at all) - 4 (on a wide scale)
• Multiple items per dimension
• Analysis of total sample: established that different
patterns at each type of university statistically significant
• Analysis per individual university, in greater depth
 Weighted Average Index to rank items
 Principal Component Analysis
 Mean of each set of variables within a component plotted
to spider graphs
 Significance of association tested
Social science that makes a difference
A segmented hierarchical national system
TOTAL /
AVERAGE
ResU2
ResU1
CompU
UoT
RuralU
Number of engaged
academics
412
563
272
344
150
On an isolated scale
only (2)
38%
34%
38%
17%
40%
33%
Moderate scale (3 and
33%
4) with a single partner
28%
23%
21%
24%
26%
Moderate scale (3 and
4) with more than two
partners (networked)
23%
14%
18%
37%
22%
23%
No Engagement
7%
24%
21%
26%
14%
19%
Number of academics
in sample
442
738
343
462
174
Social science that makes a difference
Partners
UoT
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
ResU1
CompU
.5
.0
RuralU
ResU2
Firm partners
Academic partners
Welfare partners
Community partners
Civil society partners
Government partners
Social science that makes a difference
Frequent interaction with firms only
TOTAL /
AVERAGE
Moderate scale (3 and 4)
ResU2
ResU1
CompU
UoT
RuralU
LNFs % of all academics
25
28
26
31
18
27
LNFs % of engaged academics
26
37
33
41
21
33
SMMEs % of all academics
19
20
26
32
21
24
SMMEs % of engaged academics
20
26
33
44
24
29
MNCs % of all academics
16
17
17
14
12
16
MNCs % of engaged academics
17
23
21
19
14
20
Social science that makes a difference
Types of relationship
UoT
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
ResU1
CompU
.5
.0
RuralU
ResU2
Engaged research
Engaged teaching and outreach
Alternative teaching
Technology transfer
Social science that makes a difference
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ResU2
ResU1
CompU
UoT
RuralU
Total /
Average
Engaged research
Engaged teaching and outreach
Alternative teaching
Technology transfer
Social science that makes a difference
Percentage academics who interacted on moderate to wide scale
Percentage academics who interacted on moderate to wide scale
Types of relationship SMMEs / MNCs
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ResU2
ResU1
CompU
UoT
RuralU
Total /
Average
Engaged research
Engaged teaching and outreach
Alternative teaching
Technology transfer
Outcomes of frequent interaction with firms
ResU2
ResU1
CompU
UoT
RuralU
Average
LNFs
Academic benefits
80
86
84
89
94
86
Community and social development
20
36
36
57
69
40
Productivity and employment
generation
24
28
43
59
53
39
Academic benefits
83
86
83
87
83
85
Community and social development
24
39
34
56
50
41
Productivity and employment
generation
25
34
41
57
39
41
Academic benefits
83
91
81
89
90
87
Community and social development
19
38
35
60
62
39
Productivity and employment
generation
21
38
46
63
67
42
SMMEs
MNCs
Social science that makes a difference
Value of analysing frequency and forms
of interaction in university types?
• Situate firm interaction within total pattern of interactive
activity:
• Strong awareness of importance of interaction
• Scale of active and networked interaction low
• Academic partners, teaching oriented types of
relationship and academic benefits most frequent
• Firm partners, research and innovation oriented
relationships and productivity benefits not frequent
=> Intellectual imperatives tend to drive academics,
traditional forms of interaction prevail, and academic
engagement oriented to community and social
development is more significant than entrepreneurial
interaction
Social science that makes a difference
Patterns differ by type of university
• Incentives and barriers strongly related to differentiated
nature
• Disaggregation and investigation of heterogeneity and
diversity at the micro-level can reveal important evidence
of emergent activity that can be nurtured
• If policy makers understand the wider range of forms of
academic engagement in addition to main
entrepreneurial forms, initiatives can be created to build
academic capabilities to link to knowledge users in firms
more effectively and on a wider scale
• AND to link to knowledge users in communities / informal
sector!
Social science that makes a difference
Strategies informed by heterogeneity of
imperatives shaping interaction
• Segmented and hierarchical HE system barrier to ALL
forms of interaction => enhance knowledge flows
• Range of interventions required:
• UoT – potential ‘spots of interaction’ => interventions
to support a larger scale of enterpreneurial activity
• Res2 – convince academics of potential value,
alongside financial incentives
• CompU – build capabilities and scientific reputations
to extend/nurture spots of interaction
• RuralU-build capabilities to link informal sector actors
into formal value chains
=> View from inside HE critical to identify barriers and
incentives
Social science that makes a difference