FORMAL-INFORMAL CHANNELS OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE

TRANSFER: THE CASE OF AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS SCHOOLS

Quyen T. Dang; Pavlina Jasovska; Hussain Gulzar Rammal*; Katie Schlenker

UTS Business School

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

*Corresponding Author: hussain.rammal@uts.edu.au

ABSTRACT

The transfer of knowledge between university and industry is a significant activity that is facilitated by government policy and incentives. Australian universities have a global reputation for excellence in research and training. However, the country’s low score in innovation ranking has prompted the government and industry bodies to emphasise the importance of and provide support to high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. We study the knowledge transfer practices of 10 Australian universities and provide insights into how these universities, and in particular the Business Schools, respond to the funding cuts faced by the university sector. We find that the universities use both formal (research centres, incubators, and contract-research and commercialisation) and informal channels (internships, mentoring, industry talks, transdisciplinary research platforms, collaborative Ph.D. programs, and industry training programs) to transfer knowledge with industry partners.

Keywords: University-Industry knowledge transfer; Australia; STEM; formal and informal

channels

INTRODUCTION

Universities play a pivotal role in the collaborative relationship between governments and

industry. Universities undertake high-quality research and are tasked by governments to

generate and transfer knowledge to the industry and the broader community (Baglieri, Baldi, &

Tucci, 2018). This relationship is best explained by the Triple Helix Model of collaboration

between university, industry and government (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000) which attempts to

encourage and support the development of distribution channels that facilitate the transfer of

research, technology and knowledge between universities and industries (known as universities-

industry collaboration or UIC) (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015).

1

Public universities in many countries are facing the challenges of growing competition for

research funding. To address the challenge, universities are attempting to become more

entrepreneurial and finding avenues to fund their activities (Fischer, Schaeffer, Vonortas, &

Queiroz, 2018). Hence, the term entrepreneurial universities is used to refer to universities that

drive innovation and entrepreneurship activities (Guerrero, Urbano, Fayolle, Klofsten, & Mian,

2016) and the University-Industry (U-I) knowledge exchange is seen as one of the key pillars

that define an entrepreneurial university (OECD, 2012).

While sustaining a long-term UIC relationship can be beneficial for all parties involved

(Kaklauskas et al., 2018), the role of the government in influencing this relationship can have a

bearing on the nature and the channels of distribution used for the transfer of knowledge. We

study the Australian university sector to highlight this collaborative relationship and the

knowledge transfer mechanisms used in the UIC. A majority of the Australian universities are

public-funded, and as such their emphasis on innovation and knowledge creation focuses on

faculties that address priority areas identified by the government. The Australian government

has introduced a National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) and committed AU$1.1

billion dollars for this initiative (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). This national agenda

reflects the government’s emphasis on high-quality science, technology, engineering and

mathematics (STEM) fields, which are seen as influencing the future productivity of the

country (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013). Under this initiative, the government has

identified and allocated funds for educational and training initiatives across the education sector

(from schools to universities) that help the delivery/ transfer of technology and knowledge and

has made attempts to incorporate STEM education within the Australian Curriculum for schools

(ACARA, 2016; Education Council, 2018). Within the university sector, the NISA linked

initiatives have resulted in increased funding allocation for faculties that are directly linked to

the STEM areas, and there are fewer opportunities for faculties like business to access the

linkages and resources. More recently, the Australian government has indicated that failure by

universities to increase enrolment in science and maths programs could affect the funding they

receive (Wright, 2018).

In this study, we explore what strategic responses the Australian universities and their Business

Schools implement to overcome the challenges posed by the government’s priority on STEM

areas; and how these strategic responses are integrated into U-I knowledge transfer channels.

We analysed relevant reports related to the Australian Government’s NISA and focus on STEM

2

fields, as well as publicly accessible strategic and policy statements and reports for the 10

Australian universities, with particular emphasis on the strategies employed by the Business

Schools for U-I knowledge transfer.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: the review of the literature on U-I

knowledge transfer and UIC is presented in the next section, followed by an overview of the

Australian university sector. The research method followed in this study is detailed next, before

the key findings of this study are presented. The paper concludes by discussing the findings of

this research and implications for the three stakeholders: universities, industries, and

governments.

UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

The UIC, and U-I knowledge transfer, in particular, have been the subject of growing interest

and academic research. The collaboration between the two sides signifies their interdependence.

For universities to continue to fund their world-class research and innovation, they need the

support of industry partners for collaborative research funding as well as opportunities for their

students to gain work-integrated learning experience to improve their future employment

prospects (Frunzaru, Vătămănescu, Gazzola, & Bolisani, 2018). Industry partners seek the

knowledge that universities generate to improve the competitiveness and innovation of their

business practices. As these organisations are also potential employers of past and future

graduates from the universities, their collaborative relationship with the university allows them

to provide input into the skills and knowledge they seek from the future pool of candidates.

Despite this two-way relationship, the majority of the extant literature tends to focus on the

transfer of knowledge from universities to industry (Franco & Haase, 2015; Scandura, 2016;

Soh & Subramanian, 2014), and there is a need for further research on industry to university

knowledge transfer mechanisms and outcomes (Ankrah, Burgess, Grimshaw, & Shaw, 2013).

The literature on U-I knowledge transfer is categorised into different streams. Agarwal (2001)

in his review of university-to-industry knowledge transfer classifies extant literature into four

areas: firm characteristics; university characteristics; geography concerning localised

spillovers and channels of knowledge transfer. Firm characteristics refer to the ability of

industry firms to absorb externally generated knowledge, including that from universities

(Hermans & Castiaux, 2017), which can then be internalised to facilitate innovation in products

and processes (Guo, Jasovska, Rammal, & Rose, 2018). The university characteristics stream of

3

literature focuses on university policies regarding licensing strategies, intellectual property, and

commercialisation of research (Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2003). The transfer of tacit

knowledge requires interaction in person, and this is the focus of the research stream on

geography concerning localised spillovers (Ponds, van Oort, & Frenken, 2010). Finally,

research contracts, patents, and publications are some of the channels of knowledge transfer that

the literature focuses on (Arenas & González, 2018).

The transfer of knowledge between university and industry can be through formal and informal

channels (Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2004). According to Vedovello (1997), the formal channels

consists of a contractual agreement between the universities and organisations where they

jointly explore opportunities to exploit the knowledge and expertise available to them. Informal

channels of transfer involve access to the expertise, equipment, and capabilities that embodies

the knowledge. While some studies suggest a human channel of transfer involving students and

industry, based on the nature of the interaction, we include these as part of the informal or formal

channels. These distribution channels allow universities to meet the challenge and increased

pressure for greater collaboration with industry to gain access to resources including funding

for research projects (Bekkers & Freitas, 2008). Industry, on the other hand, can benefit from

the collaboration by developing capabilities that help improve their competitiveness (Ferreira,

Raposo, Rutten, & Varga, 2013; Piterou & Birch, 2014).

The UIC faces many barriers in the knowledge transfer process. Muscio & Vallanti (2014)

identify some of these barriers to the U-I relationship including deviation from the university

and industry partner’s core objectives, the added pressures on universities to continue providing

high quality teaching when academic resources are diverted to entrepreneurial activities, and the

risk of independence of universities being questioned if they are seen to undertake industry-

funded projects. Despite these concerns, evidence suggests that an entrepreneurial university

does not distract academics from traditional activities (Kalar & Antoncic, 2015). Moreover,

Cheng, Zhang, Huang, & Liao (2018) believe that the relationship can be beneficial for all

sides, and an effective UIC policy that involves the government can have a significant positive

effect on the collaboration input. Trust between U-I partners is another significant barrier to

collaboration, which can be lowered if the organisations have had prior experience of

collaborative research (Bruneel, D’Este, & Salter, 2010; Rajalo & Vadi, 2017).

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY SECTOR

4

The Australian higher education sector includes universities and other institutions that are

involved in providing post-secondary school education (Department of Education and Training

- Australian Government, 2018). The sector operates under the national policy for regulated

qualification called the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which incorporates

qualification from institutions into a single national qualification framework (AQF, 2018). In

addition to AQF, Australia has a national regulatory and quality agency for higher education

called the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which was established

by the Australian government to regulate higher education providers against a set of standards

(Study in Australia - Australian Government, 2018b).

Australia consists of six States (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania,

Victoria, and Western Australia), and two territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern

Territory) (Australian Government, 2018b). There are 43 universities that operate in the various

States and territories in Australia, including two international universities and one private

speciality university. New South Wales is home to the largest number of universities (11),

whereas one university is located in both the Northern Territory and Tasmania (Study in

Australia - Australian Government, 2018a).

The Australian university sector is a significant contributor to the economy, with revenues of

AU$30.1 billion, and a surplus of AU$1.6 billion (EY, 2018). The sector employs 100,000

people (about 8 per cent of the Australian workforce), and is the third largest export sector,

adding 5.2 per cent of real gross value to the economy (Austrade, 2018). With 24 per cent of

international students studying in Australian universities, international accreditation is seen as a

way of demonstrating quality standards to prospective students and employers globally. For

Australian Business Schools, two such options include being accredited by the Association to

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the European Quality Improvement

System (EQUIS). Both AACSB and EQUIS reinforce the UIC and include reference to

corporate connections and transfer of knowledge to the industry as key criteria for accreditation

(AACSB, 2018; EQUIS, 2018). Ernst & Young in their report on the future of Australian

universities suggests that to remain competitive, universities need to co-create and collaborate

with industry (EY, 2018).

However, despite the presence of a strong university sector, Australia still lags behind other

OECD countries for innovation (Universities Australia, 2018a). The Australian government has

responded by introducing the NISA and has AU$1.1 billion dollars for this initiative, which

5

places emphasis on high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

fields, which are seen as areas of priority for future economic growth and competitiveness of

the country (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013). UIC and knowledge transfer are seen as

critical drivers for the growth of the STEM fields, both in terms of innovation and training

teachers to implement the government’s emphasis on science and maths within the school

curriculum. A recent report by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation

and Science made recommendations under five strategic policy imperatives to improve

Australia’s innovation standing (Innovation and Science Australia, 2017). Three of the

recommendations relate to education and industry engagement, with an emphasis on supporting

jobs for the future, increased commercialisation of research and support for high-growth firms

(Innovation and Science Australia, 2017). Having accepted these recommendations, the

government has directed Australian universities to increase enrolment and training in STEM-

related subjects and programs (Australian Government, 2018a).

Industry reports have also previously highlighted the importance of STEM for future workplace

requirements, but there are concerns that UIC remains low with only 27 per cent of Australian

R&D firms involved in any form of collaboration with universities (Deloitte Access Economics,

2014). This engagement has been even lower in Work Integrated Learning (WIL) programs

such as internships, which have historically been focussed on STEM sectors. However, there

have been efforts made recently by industry bodies and universities to encourage engagement

with business faculties and introduce further WIL opportunities within the business programs

(Edwards, Perkins, Pearce, & Hong, 2015).

In Australia, Business Schools have recognised expertise in research, but their relationship with

industry and the public sector remains weak (Guthrie, 2017). Acknowledging the role that the

NISA can play in improving Australia’s innovation, Guthrie (2017) argues that Australian

Business Schools have to increase industry engagement and need to think beyond merely

providing technical knowledge to students to also developing an entrepreneurial mindset. As

government funding is based on the number of students enrolled in a program, there is a risk

that Business Schools could see a reduction in the funding they receive. The reduction in funds

are in addition to the AU$2.2 billion funding cuts the broader university sector is facing in

Australia (Karp, 2018). In this study, we attempt to explore how Australian Business Schools

use their collaboration with the industry to address these funding issues and their strategic

response to increased pressure for entrepreneurial activities.

6

RESEARCH METHOD

A case study approach was used to explore the strategic responses of Australian universities and

their Business Schools to the Government’s NISA and priority on STEM areas. The case study

approach allows for the investigation of contemporary phenomena in context (Yin, 2014). As

there is no single acceptable number of cases required, consideration was given to practical

considerations including the research context, resources available and accessibility of data

(Emmel, 2014). Purposive sampling was then used to identify ‘information rich’ cases of the

matter being explored (Patton, 2002). This method is considered appropriate in instances where

the intention is to identify particular cases of a phenomenon for in-depth investigation, rather

than to generalise across an entire population (Neuman, 2006).

The sampling frame from which we selected our cases was the Group of Eight (Go8) and

Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN). The Go8 and ATN represent the oldest

and the technology-driven universities respectively and are ranked among the best universities

in the world (see Table 1). By including one university from each group in each Australian

State/Territory, we can observe whether the strategic response of the university is influenced by

their location or their presence in either of the university groups. Thus, we chose two

universities from those States and Territories in Australia where both a Go8 and an ATN

university are located. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Northern Territory, and

Tasmania did not meet this criterion, and therefore universities located within these States and

Territories were not included in the sample. Using this approach, data for the study were

collected from 10 Australian universities, consisting of a sample of five Go8 universities and

five ATN universities, representing five Australian states (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, Western

Australia, and South Australia). Table 1 presents the 10 universities included in the study

sample.

---INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

---Notes Table 1): * QUT left ATN on 28 September 2018 (QUT, 2018). Since the data for QUT was collected before the university’s departure from the ATN, we have included it within the group.

University ranking data sourced from Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 (Times Higher Education, 2018). Other data sourced from (Australian Technology Network, 2018; Group of Eight Australia, 2018; Universities Australia, 2018b)

7

Data for the case studies were collected during August-September 2018. Two categories of

publicly available documents were consulted. First, we collected relevant reports and policy

documents published by the Australian government, the universities, and industry groups

related to the NISA, focus on STEM fields and UIC. We reviewed these sources to trace key

events in the industry represented by regulatory and policy changes related to the STEM agenda

and related funding schemes. Then, the websites and strategic documents (annual reports,

strategic plans, brochures, and mission and vision statements) of the ten universities and their

Business Schools were analysed to identify critical strategic responses to the Australian

government funding allocations, and the initiatives taken concerning collaboration with industry

partners via formal and informal channels of knowledge transfer. The review was conducted as

a series of keyword searches using universities and Business Schools’ websites and their

strategic documents. Search terms were identified from the review of literature and initial

analysis of the government policy documents, and included the following terms used to explain

UIC and knowledge transfer: ‘STEM’, ‘industry’, ‘knowledge transfer’, ‘interdisciplinary’,

‘multidisciplinary’, ‘incubator’, ‘hub’, ‘commercialisation’, ‘partnerships’, ‘scholarships’,

‘funding schemes’, ‘start-up’, ‘relationships’, ‘contract research’, and ‘integration’.

The extensive dataset gathered from the initial keywords search were recorded into an Excel

spreadsheet and reviewed by all authors for their relevance to the study. At this stage, it was

important to eliminate sources of data not addressing the scope of our research. That is, we

included only data related to transfer channels that explicitly focus on STEM-Business

knowledge and established UIC, therefore, ignoring general strategy statements about a “focus

on STEM” or “industry engagement” without a tangible outcome and link to practice. Another

exclusion criterion was related to our primary focus on Business Schools. Hence, we excluded

findings from other university departments, both STEM (e.g., engineering) or non-STEM

(education). Thus, we were able to investigate how Universities and their Business Schools

have responded to the pressures to develop and grow STEM areas and identify how the

universities incorporated these areas into U-I knowledge transfer channels. As a final step, we

went to each university and Business School’s website individually to check whether any

relevant data had been missed.

Data were collected and analysed gradually in stages. First, we selected four universities from

our sample (two Go8 and two ATN universities) and searched broadly for key terms used by

these educational institutions to refer to the U-I knowledge transfer, and government funding

8

related to STEM. This stage helped us confirm the themes identified previously and added

further ones across both university and Business School levels, such as ‘research centres and

laboratories’, ‘industry mentoring’, ‘research internships’, ‘collaborative Ph.D.’,

‘transdisciplinary funding platform’, ‘industry research projects’ and ‘industry mentoring’. We

then organised the themes based on their relevance to informal or formal knowledge transfer.

This step was important to ensure that all knowledge channels categorised under identified

themes involved a knowledge-link to the industry. We additionally coded terms referring to

three types of knowledge transfer direction (from university to industry; from industry to

university; and two-way) and cross-referenced them with formal and informal knowledge

transfer channels. These categories were then used to analyse the remaining documents and

reports published in print or on websites of industry bodies and the remaining six universities in

our sample.

While a quantitative approach is often used in the analysis of documents, instead of reporting

the occurrence of certain terms, we aimed to explain in-depth the relationships between the

STEM agenda articulated by the government and the universities’ and Business Schools’

responses. Hence, qualitative data analysis and attending to relationships between terms was a

suitable technique for our study. We identified themes (Tracy, 2013) that helped us to

categorise and explain how the detailed explanations provided in the reports on University and

Business School initiatives concerning collaboration with industry partners and channels of

knowledge transfer were linked to the STEM focus and priority of government funding sources.

We present our analysis of the data in the findings section below.

FINDINGS

Our findings are presented in two main sections. First, we discuss university and Business

School level approaches to the integration of a STEM focus at a strategic level. Secondly, we

examine how the sampled universities and their Business Schools have implemented a STEM

focus into their U-I knowledge transfer channels.

Strategic responses of Australian Universities to STEM priorities

As highlighted earlier, the government plays a significant role in the operations of Australian

universities. Therefore, we first analysed the strategic responses of the sampled Australian

universities and Business Schools to the government’s STEM agenda, drawing on strategy

9

statements, including mission and vision, espoused in various public documents, such as annual

and strategic reports.

At the university level, we observed differences in the ways and extent to which strategic

reports and statements reflect engagement with the STEM agenda. Some universities such as

Curtin University (Curtin), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), and University of

South Australia (UniSA), explicitly mention a STEM focus in their strategic reports (e.g. annual

reports, strategic plans). Others, including RMIT, University of Sydney (USyd) and University

of Western Australia (UWA) do not mention STEM explicitly, but do emphasise the

importance of interdisciplinary research.

The remainder of the sample, comprising the University of Technology Sydney (UTS),

University of Queensland (UQ), University of Adelaide (UniAde), and University of Melbourne

(UniMelb) do not mention STEM explicitly, nor do they indirectly refer to a STEM agenda in

their strategic statements. Interestingly, in their 2017 annual report, UniMelb addresses the

uncertainty of government funding and highlights the focus of diversifying their income to

ensure independence. Although these universities do not explicitly acknowledge a STEM

agenda, this should not be taken to suggest they do not engage with STEM practices.

All of the sampled universities were found to have general strategies concerning STEM,

although there were differences in particular practices. The common areas among all

universities are ‘STEM for Minorities’ and ‘STEM for Education’. The purpose of the ‘STEM

for Minorities’ initiatives is to improve the participation of under-represented groups in STEM

areas involving women, girls, low-income earners, and Indigenous communities. An example of

this commitment is ‘Athena Swan in Australia’ – the award that aims to increase the levels of

gender equity and diversity in STEMM (STEM and Medicines) disciplines in higher education

and research.

Furthermore, Australian universities are willing partners in achieving the government’s targets

and have increased their engagement and partnerships with schools to develop the skills of

school students and teachers in STEM fields and to encourage their participation in STEM

careers. In addition to these practices, UniSA and USyd have allocated grants to encourage

student engagement with research and practices in STEM-focussed areas. USyd also has a

centre called The Warren Centre that teaches leadership in engineering, technology and

innovation areas.

At the Business School level, there is varied engagement with, and emphasis on the STEM 10

fields in strategy documents or public statements. Six of the sampled Business Schools (QUT,

UniMelb, UQ, Curtin, UWA and UniAde) had no reference to the STEM fields within their

strategy statements. While RMIT’s College of Business goes as far as to refer to the

University’s strategic statements presenting RMIT as a “global university of technology and

design” (RMIT, 2018), the UTS, USyd and UniSA Business Schools explicitly refer to a STEM

focus in their business-level strategy documents.

UTS Business School exhibits a clear focus on the STEM fields, evidenced in both a “Message

from the Dean” and also in the “Business School Report”. In both documents, the Dean

explicitly mentions the fact that UTS is a technology-focussed university, hence the presence of

STEM fields across all university faculties is integral to its identity. Likewise, the USyd

Business School highlights the instrumental role of technology and the fact that technical

knowledge – “artificial intelligence, smart machines and robotics” – is an inherent part of the

knowledge of top managers (Whitwell, 2015, p.3). Finally, UniSA Business School highlights

their collaboration with STEM faculties. Specifically, the Business School Division Brochure

lists the importance of business fields which are combined with STEM research fields, citing

examples such as “transforming agriculture with water economics”, “driving tech-based

incubation” and the “neuroscience of good advertising” (UniSA, 2018).

Integration of STEM into U-I knowledge transfer

Drawing from the literature on knowledge transfer mechanisms, we categorise our findings on

integration of STEM into UIC under two dimensions: (1) formal vs. informal channels of

knowledge transfer; and (2) direction of transfer (university to industry; industry to university;

or two-way). Table 2 summarises the formal and informal channels of UI knowledge transfer at

both the university and Business School level.

---INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

---Notes (Table 2): Uni: University levelBus: Business School level♦♦♦: this channel involves the Business school but operates at the university levelEst.: Year of establishmentUI: University to Industry knowledge transferIU: Industry to University knowledge transfer↔: Two-way knowledge transfer between University and Industry

11

At the broader university level, we find the use of three formal channels for STEM knowledge

transfer: research centres, incubators, and contract-based research and commercialisation.

As highlighted in Table 2, research centres are the most common channel of knowledge transfer

used by the universities in our study. Out of the ten universities, seven use this channel to

transfer knowledge. Some universities and research centres engage only in one-way knowledge

transfer from university to industry and outline their objective to deliver research outcomes to

improve industry practices in STEM-related areas. Other university research centres engage in

two-way knowledge transfer, through partnerships with industry to conduct mutually agreed

research, or obtaining funding from industry partners for research projects. It is important to

note that some research centres have been established recently, which could reflect the

universities’ increasing engagement with the government’s STEM agenda in their U-I

knowledge transfer channels.

Incubators are another formal channel of knowledge transfer at the university level, found in

seven of the ten sampled universities. The purposes of these incubators vary but mostly focus

on providing funding, skills, knowledge and professional support for idea developments and

start-ups. Although these incubators are not exclusively for STEM projects, many projects are

related to STEM areas, especially technology. Most of these incubators have a two-way

direction of knowledge transfer: receiving start-up resources from the universities, and gaining

support from industry partners regarding knowledge and funding for these incubators. Similar

to research centres, most of these incubators have been established recently.

The last formal channel of knowledge transfer implemented at the university level is contract-

based research and commercialisation, found in three out of the ten sampled universities.

Through this channel, universities aim to market their research outcomes that are typically

practice-oriented and also to conduct consulting and research contracts for industries. In so

doing, the universities are demonstrating their entrepreneurial nature and attempting to address

the government funding cuts they are facing.

In addition to the formal channels, our study identified various informal channels of U-I

knowledge transfer used by the Australian universities in this study, including industry

mentoring, internships and industry talks and projects. These channels demonstrate knowledge

transfer across three directions: from university to industry, industry to university and two-way.

However, most tend to be from industry to university. The first example of these informal

channels is industry mentoring for university students in STEM areas. Three universities follow

12

this practice, whereas two of the universities also offer internships in STEM areas as

opportunities for students to gain real work experience or work on industry research projects.

Universities also play a role in transferring knowledge from industry to the education sector as

in the case of UniSA and UniMelb. For example, industry partners work with UniSA to provide

real-world STEM examples to support teachers in school teaching, and Google Australia

supports UniMelb in their STEM Education for schools’ program. Industry talks and projects

are also channels for universities to increase their engagement with STEM-related professions,

as undertaken by QUT. Universities also offer facilities that industry partners can access, for

example, the Living Lab at UniMelb provides exhibitions and experiences in STEM industries.

At the Business School level, formal channels for STEM knowledge transfer included research

centres and incubators, thus not dissimilar from the university level. The business level research

centres tool various forms – some centres are formed in direct collaborations with STEM

faculties within the university, and others are a result of collaborations with already established

transdisciplinary experts. One example of a direct collaboration is the Centre for Business and

Social Innovation at UTS Business School. The Centre consists of staff from Business, Health,

Engineering and IT, Science, and Design, Architecture and Building faculties. Similarly, the

Institute of Transport and Logistics at the USyd Business School collaborates with the Centre

for Robotics and Intelligent Systems and Centre for Excellence in Advanced Food Enginomics.

In some instances, Business Schools have tapped into the transdisciplinary knowledge of their

experts to develop new research centres that allow business schools to use their specific

knowledge base and combine it with STEM-related knowledge to offer new programs in Health

Economics (UTS, RMIT, UQ Business Schools) or Applied Finance (UniSA, UTS Business

Schools).

In addition to research centres, several Business Schools from our sampled universities have

introduced tech-based incubators. The incubators provide resources to various stakeholders,

such as entrepreneurs, students, and industry experts. The incubators at UniMelb, USyd, UQ,

and UniAde are embedded at the Business School level. For example, the tech-based incubator

Xelarite is embedded within the Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre of

The Faculty of Professions, which includes the Adelaide Business School. Other universities

tend to tap into the knowledge of the Business School to provide additional research stream. For

example, the Innovation and Collaboration Centre is a university-wide incubator where UniSA

Business School contributes to entrepreneurial skills and business growth. This incubator also

13

involves DXC Technology which is a private industry partner and allows for the efficient

pooling of interdisciplinary knowledge. These examples highlight the nature of the relationships

that Business Schools in Australia are forging to highlight their relevance to the changing

nature of technology and innovation-based emphasis on STEM areas.

Along with formal channels of STEM knowledge transfer between Business Schools and

industry, we also identified several informal channels: transdisciplinary research platforms,

collaborative Ph.D. programs and training programs with industry engagement. The first of

these, in the form of transdisciplinary research platforms, exist at both UniSA and RMIT

Business Schools. These platforms serve to provide opportunities for interdisciplinary

collaborations between faculties. RMIT Business School, for example, has initiated the

Enabling Capability Platform with a focus on selected inter-disciplinary clusters (for example,

Biomedical and Health Innovation). These transdisciplinary projects, which tend to be based on

areas of relevance to practice or industry partners, can also be converted into funded Ph.D.

projects. The final informal channel is represented by interdisciplinary training programs within

the Business Schools. One example is the RMIT Business School, which offers a program in

Engineering Management that is designed to prepare the future business leaders of tech-based

firms to combine the knowledge of strategic thinking and technological expertise. Links with

industry are formed during the program through membership in the Program Advisory

Committee, which involves graduates, practitioners, and students.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our findings on the integration of a STEM focus into the U-I knowledge transfer channels of

Business Schools are aligned with the contextual challenges created by the Australian

government’s STEM agenda. Excluding Curtin, all Business Schools in our study implemented

some U-I STEM knowledge transfer channels. Moreover, many of these channels have been

recently established, which may signal the strategic responses of Business Schools towards the

STEM agenda.

We illustrate the interdependent relationships between universities, industry, and government

and highlight the formal and informal knowledge transfer channels used in UIC (see Figure 1).

---INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

---

14

Australian universities are ranked among the best educational institutions in the world and have

historically engaged with industry to transfer knowledge. This collaboration has been

acknowledged by accreditation bodies, with 9 out of the 10 universities in our sample being

accredited by at least one of the two main accrediting bodies (AACSB and EQUIS). However,

Australia’s innovation ranking against OECD countries remains poor and highlights the

country’s widening gap in STEM-related knowledge. As highlighted earlier in the paper, only a

small percentage of R&D firms engage with Australian universities, prompting the Australian

government to increase funding for STEM-related research and education in schools, while

reducing the overall funding allocation for the university sector. Industry firms have also

suggested that collaboration with universities would need to consider the skills needed in the

future for technology-driven jobs related to innovation. We find that Business Schools in

Australia have responded to these funding challenges and concerns raised by industry partners

by increasing their collaboration with external industry partners and internally with STEM-

related faculties via interdisciplinary research. Figure 1 highlights the formal and informal

channels used by Australian universities and their Business Schools to engage with the industry

and transfer knowledge. The formal channels of using research centres and incubators are found

at both the university and Business School level. However, universities also use

commercialisation of new research as a way to improve their financial standing, which can be

difficult for the social sciences faculties such as Business Schools.

Regarding informal channels, the use of industry mentoring, WIL based internship programs,

and industry talks and projects were commonly used by universities to transfer knowledge. The

Business Schools in contrast attempt to access the limited funding pool by forming

transdisciplinary research platforms, undertaking collaborative Ph.D. programs, and

undertaking training programs for industry partners. These strategic initiatives by the Business

Schools not only help highlight their relevance to current and future business practices, but the

continued engagement with industry allows them to understand the needs of their stakeholder

and respond accordingly in the content and the way education is imparted to students who are

preparing for the jobs of the future.

This study has a number of implications for universities, Business Schools, and policymakers

both in Australia and other countries. First, at the governance level, universities could enhance

their role in facilitating the involvement of Business Schools in STEM knowledge transfer by

promoting transdisciplinary collaboration between Business Schools and other STEM faculties.

15

While government priorities are aligned to STEM areas, universities and Business Schools alike

have responded, pushing the vital role of Business Schools as a facilitator for STEM

disciplines, including their ability to add value by bringing business knowledge which can

increase the efficiency and marketability of the service provided and the human resource of the

universities. Therefore, by engaging Business Schools, universities can improve the

effectiveness of both STEM and non-STEM faculties, thus boosting the entire system.

Second, we suggest that Business Schools should improve their links not only with other STEM

faculties but also with industry partners. Business Schools should think strategically about their

engagement with industry partners in STEM fields through both formal and informal

knowledge transfer channels. For example, through incubators and research centres, Business

Schools could cooperate with industry partners to solve real-life business issues and offer

market solutions for them, which could improve their financial independence. Also, providing

opportunities for business students to engage with STEM-related industry partners through

internships, mentorship programs or industry projects could be beneficial for both industry and

the university.

Lastly, as we identified in the model, government or policymakers play a critical role in U-I

knowledge transfer. Our findings demonstrate that Business Schools can collaborate with other

knowledge disciplines to engage with and add value to industry firms. The creation of

knowledge science parks in Australia that facilitate the interaction between industry and

different university faculties could provide the platform for engagement and could be the

impetus for innovative thinking aimed at finding solutions for current and future challenges

(Díez-Vial & Montoro-Sánchez, 2016; Pinto, Fernandez-Esquinas, & Uyarra, 2015).

This study has explored the strategic responses and specific practices related to U-I knowledge

transfer of 10 Australian universities and their Business Schools in response to the

Government’s STEM agenda. We acknowledge as a limitation that this study is based on

publicly available information, and therefore we present an understanding of published

strategies and practices around U-I knowledge transfer concerning the national STEM agenda.

In order to progress our understanding of these practices, including the underlying rationales

and any responses that are still in progress, future research would benefit from the conduct of

interviews with relevant university and Business School representatives with involvement or

responsibility for the development of these strategies and practices. Additionally, this research

was limited to Business Schools and there is an opportunity to compare with the experiences of,

16

and strategies employed by managers in other non-STEM faculties. Therefore, future research

could seek to widen the sample, not only in terms of additional Australian universities and other

non-STEM faculties, but also including institutions from other countries in order to conduct a

comparative analysis of how different national research and funding agendas prompt strategic

responses from universities, and specific practices in their U-I knowledge transfer efforts.

REFERENCES

AACSB. (2018). Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Retrieved 28 July from https://www.aacsb.edu.

ACARA. (2016). ACARA STEM Connections Project Report Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Agarwal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), pp. 285-302.

Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), pp. 387-408.

Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2-3), pp. 50-65.

AQF. (2018). Australian Qualifications Framework. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.aqf.edu.au.

Arenas, J. J., & González, D. (2018). Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 8(2 Article No. 19 )

Austrade. (2018). Why Australia. Benchmark Report: Australian Trade and Investment Commission.

Australian Government. (2018a). Australian Government response to Innovation and Science Australia’s Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation. Canberra.

Australian Government. (2018b). State and territory government. Retrieved from https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works/state-and-territory-government.

Australian Technology Network. (2018). Our Universities. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.atn.edu.au/about-us/our-universities/.

Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76-77(August-September), pp. 51-63.

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, pp. 1837-1853.

Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), pp. 858-868.

Cheng, H., Zhang, Z., Huang, Q., & Liao, Z. (2018). The effect of university–industry 17

collaboration policy on universities’ knowledge innovation and achievements transformation: based on innovation chain. The Journal of Technology Transfer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9653-9

Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). National Innovation and Science Agenda Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Deloitte Access Economics. (2014). Australia’s STEM workforce: a survey of employers ACT, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist.

Department of Education and Training - Australian Government. (2018). Higher education sector. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-0.

Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50-51(April-May), pp. 41-52.

Education Council. (2018). Optimising STEM Industry-School Partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s Next Generation Melbourne: Education Services Australia.

Edwards, D., Perkins, K., Pearce, J., & Hong, J. (2015). Work Integrated Learning in STEM in Australian Universities: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Emmel, N. (2014). Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach London: Sage.

EQUIS. (2018). European Quality Improvement System. Retrieved 28 July from https://efmdglobal.org/accreditations/business-schools/equis/.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, pp. 109-123.

EY. (2018). Can the universities of today lead learning for tomorrow? The University of the Future: Ernst & Young Australia.

Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., Rutten, R., & Varga, A. (2013). Cooperation, Clusters, and Knowledge Transfer – Universities and Firms towards Regional Competitiveness: Springer.

Fischer, B. B., Schaeffer, P. R., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. (2018). Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), pp. 263-284.

Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2015). University–industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 36(April-June), pp. 41-51.

Frunzaru, V., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Gazzola, P., & Bolisani, E. (2018). Challenges to higher education in the knowledge economy: anti-intellectualism, materialism and employability. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(3), pp. 388-401.

Group of Eight Australia. (2018). Member information. Retrieved 10 July from https://go8.edu.au/page/member-information.

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), pp. 551-563.

Guo, Y., Jasovska, P., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2018). Global mobility of professionals and the transfer of tacit knowledge in multinational service firms. Journal of Knowledge

18

Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2017-0399

Guthrie, J. (2017). How Australian universities must change in a digital world. AcuityMag, 11 October.

Hermans, J., & Castiaux, A. (2017). Contingent knowledge transfers in university–industry R&D projects. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(1), pp. 68-77.

Innovation and Science Australia. (2017). Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation. A plan for Australia to thrive in the global innovation race: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government.

Kaklauskas, A., Banaitis, A., Ferreira, F. A. F., Ferreira, J. J. M., Amaratunga, D., Lepkova, N., Ubartė, I., & Banaitienė, N. (2018). An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities. Sustainability, 10(1 Article No. 119)

Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, p 1011.

Karp, P. (2018). $2.2bn funding cut to universities 'a cap on opportunity for all'. The Guardian, 28 February

Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a Resource Base for Competitive Advantage: University–Industry Links for Technology Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), pp. 311-326.

Muscio, A., & Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived Obstacles to University–Industry Collaboration: Results from a Qualitative Survey of Italian Academic Departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), pp. 410-429.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop and the European Commission.

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National Interest: A Strategic Approach Canberra: Australian Government.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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), pp. 1873-1891.

Piterou, A., & Birch, C. (2014). The role of Higher Education Institutions in supporting innovation in SMEs: university-based incubators and student internships as knowledge transfer tools. InImpact: The Journal of Innovation Impact:, 7(1), pp. 72-79.

Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2010). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), pp. 231-255.

QUT. (2018). QUT leaves ATN. Retrieved 29 September from https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=136330.

Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration:

19

Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62-63, pp. 42-54.

RMIT. (2018). Home Page. Retrieved 2018 from https://www.rmit.edu.au/.

Scandura, A. (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy, 45(9), pp. 1907-1922.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), pp. 111-133.

Soh, P.-H., & Subramanian, A. M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), pp. 807-821.

Study in Australia - Australian Government. (2018a). List of Australian Universities. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/australian-education/universities-and-higher-education/list-of-australian-universities.

Study in Australia - Australian Government. (2018b). TEQSA. Retrieved 20 July from https://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/australian-education/universities-and-higher-education.

Times Higher Education. (2018). World University Rankings 2019. Retrieved 27 September from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/1/length/25/locations/AU/subjects/3096/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

UniSA. (2018). Business School Division Brochure. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia (UniSA) Business School.

Universities Australia. (2018a). Innovation plan will rely on a strong university sector. Universities Australia Media Release, 30 January

Universities Australia. (2018b). University Profiles. Retrieved 10 July from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/university-profiles#.W685DC97HVo.

Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), pp. 491-531.

Whitwell, G. (2015). Our Strategic Intent 2016-2020: Business Not as Usual Sydney, NSW: The University of Sydney Business School.

Wright, S. (2018). Funds warning to unis over lack of STEM teachers. Perth Now, 9 July

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.

20

Table 1: Overview of Sample Australian Universities

Name of University

Year of University

Status

Group of 8 (G08) or

Australian Technology

Network (ATN)

World University Ranking

AACSB and/or EQUIS

accreditation of Business

School

Location of University

University of Sydney (USyd)

1850 Go8 59 AACSB and EQUIS

New South Wales

University of Melbourne (UniMelb)

1853 Go8 32 AACSB and EQUIS

Victoria

University of Adelaide (UniAde)

1874 Go8 135 AACSB South Australia

University of Queensland (UQ)

1909 Go8 69 AACSB and EQUIS

Queensland

The University of Western Australia (UWA)

1911 Go8 134 AACSB and EQUIS

Western Australia

Curtin University (Curtin)

1986 ATN 301-350 AACSB Western Australia

University of Technology Sydney (UTS)

1988 ATN 196 AACSB New South Wales

Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

1989 ATN* 201-250 AACSB and EQUIS

Queensland

University of South Australia (UniSA)

1991 ATN 201-250 EQUIS South Australia

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)

1992 ATN 401-500 none Victoria

Notes: * QUT left ATN on 28 September 2018 (QUT, 2018). Since the data for QUT was collected before the university’s departure from the ATN, we have included it within the group.

University ranking data sourced from Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 (Times Higher Education, 2018). Other data sourced from (Australian Technology Network, 2018; Group of Eight 21

Australia, 2018; Universities Australia, 2018b).

22

Table 2: Formal and informal channels of University-Industry knowledge transfer

Formal channels Informal channels

University of Technology Sydney

Uni

STEM Education Futures Research Centre (est. 2018)

UTS Hatchery – incubator (est. 2016)

UI

↔

Industry Mentoring in STEM Research internships Australian

Mathematical Sciences Institute

IUIU

Bus

Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE) (est. 1991)

Centre for Business and Social Innovation (CBSI) (est. 2017)

Business Intelligence and Data Analysis (BIDA) (est. 2017)

Quantitative Finance Research Centre

UI

UI

UI

↔

University of South Australia

Uni

STEM facilities - Future Industries Institute (FII)

Teaching for Tomorrow Program – School of Education (industry practitioners and STEM)

UI

IU

Bus

Innovation and Collaboration Centre (ICC) – tech-based incubation (est. 2015)

Venture Catalyst – incubator UniSA Ventures – technology-

based incubation ♦♦♦ Institute of Choice Centre for Applied Finance and

Economics Centre for Sustainability

Governance

↔

↔↔

↔UI

UI

Collaborative Ph.D. – interdisciplinary ♦♦♦ Research Themes – transdisciplinary

research funding scheme ♦♦♦

UIUI

RMITUni RMIT Activator – incubator UI STEM internship fair ↔

Bus Blockchain Innovation Hub Health Economics Group

↔UI

Enabling Capability Platform –transdisciplinary research centre ♦♦♦

Program: Engineering Management

UI

UICurtin University

Uni

STEM Education Research Group (under the school of Education)

Resources and Chemistry Precinct Curtin Health Innovation Research

Institute (CHIRI) Biosciences Curtin Accelerate (Incubator) Innovation Studio (Incubator)

↔

↔↔

↔IU

BusQueensland University of TechnologyUni Institute for Future Environments

Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation

QUT Starters (Incubator) (est. 2014)

QUT BlueBox (Incubator) (est. 2006)

QUT Creative Enterprise Australia

UIUI

IU

↔

↔

Industry talks and projects IU

23

(Incubator) (est. 2008) BusUniversity of Melbourne

Uni

Melbourne Interdisciplinary Research Institute (MIRI) with research from five institutes: Melbourne Energy Institute; Melbourne Networked Society Institute; Melbourne Neuroscience Institute; Melbourne Social Equity Institute; and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute. (est. 2009)

UI University Facility: Living lab STEM Educations for Schools STEM Industry Mentoring Program

UIIU↔

Bus

Centre for Actuarial Studies Melbourne Entrepreneurial Centre:

The Melbourne Accelerator ProgramTranslating Research at Melbourne (TR@M) program ♦♦♦

The Brain, Mind and Markets Laboratory (est. 2016)

The Decision Neuroscience Laboratory (est. 2012)

The Bayesian Analysis Modelling Research Group FIRN – the Financial Research

Network

↔↔

UI

UIUIUIUI

Melbourne Entrepreneurial Centre: Master of Entrepreneurship - Wade Institute

UI

University of Western Australia

Uni Research Development and Innovation

↔

Bus Research Centre: Centre for Safety (est. 2013)

↔

University of Sydney

Uni

HatchLab – Incubator (est.2016) Incubate – start-up accelerator Australian Centre for Innovation

(Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies, est.1992)

↔↔UI

Bus Sydney Genesis – start-up program Institute of Transport and Logistics

Studies (est.2008)

↔UI

University of Queensland

Uni

UniSeed – incubator UQ Idea-Hub – pre-incubator for

start-ups iLab – incubator Hype Spin Lab – for specific start-

ups UniQuest - commercialisation

↔↔

↔↔

↔

Bus

UQ Business Startup Academy Australian Institute for Business

and Economics Centre for the Business and

Economics of Health (est.2016) Business Sustainability Initiative

↔UI

UI

UIUniversity of AdelaideUni ThincLab (est. 2017) – incubator ↔ Industry Mentoring Program in the STEM IU

24

THINCubator – incubator Adelaide Enterprise – contract

research, commercialisation and licensing (est.2016)

Commercial Accelerator Scheme (Australian Institute for Machines and Learning, est. 2017)

↔↔

↔

(for Ph.D. students getting one-year mentoring from an industry expert; MedTech-Pharma and Energy-Minerals Resources)

Bus

Xelarite – industry accelerator ♦♦♦ Entrepreneurship,

Commercialisation and Innovation Centre (est.2001)

School of Architecture and Built Environment

Centre for Global Food and Resources

↔UI

UI

UI

Notes:

Uni: University level

Bus: Business School level

♦♦♦: this channel involves the Business school but operates at the university level

Est.: Year of establishment

UI: University to Industry knowledge transfer

IU: Industry to University knowledge transfer

↔: Two-way knowledge transfer between University and Industry

25

26