Eugenia Perez Vico

Towards a systemic framework for capturing and explaining the effects of academic R&D

In the EU, it is believed that the potential benefits of academic R&D are not fully reaped. Much attention is, therefore, given to enhancing commercialisation in the form of academic spin-offs, patents and licences. There are, however, a number of problems with this way of analysing the effects of academic R&D. Its contribution must instead be captured by a systems approach and we go some way towards developing such an analytical framework. This enables us to capture, explain and assess the effects of academic R&D on the dynamics of an innovation system. We apply this framework to the received literature which informs us of a great variety of impacts on such systems. Conventional indicators cover, therefore, just a small part of the full impact of academic R&D.

Enacting knowledge exchange: a context dependent and ‘role-based’ typology for capturing utility from university research

One of the key research and policy problems in innovation studies is the development of tools for understanding and measuring the impact of academic research on society. The paper contributes to resolving this problem by providing a typology that helps us to understand and analyse the roles researchers take on in order to make academic knowledge useful. A key finding is that utility creation is context dependent and varies between individual researchers and research groups. Attempts to measure impact ought therefore to allow for diversity with regard to the individual researcher or research group in the context of knowledge creation.

Knowledge triangle configurations at three Swedish Universities

The concept of a knowledge triangle, i.e., the principle of strengthening the linkages between research, education and innovation, has emerged as a result of policymakers’ expectations that universities to assume broader social responsibility. Yet, little is known about how these tasks and their interactions are orchestrated at universities. We explore how they are manifested in the organisation and strategy of three different Swedish universities, and how these manifestations are shaped by the policy landscape. The article highlights that although the knowledge triangle remains a priority, explicit national policies are lacking, with the responsibility of integration falling upon universities themselves. We observe great diversity in how the principles of knowledge production are implemented at the universities, e.g., through individuals’ interpretations and attitudes, and through management strategies and incentive schemes. The three tasks have largely been handled separately, with weak coordination and generally limited ambition demonstrated by university management teams to forge new combinations of remits. At the individual and group levels, we observe weak task articulation, although some role models serve as inspiration. Tensions emerge as the responsibilities of operationalising the knowledge triangle falls on individuals who sometimes lack the appropriate mandate and resources. These findings raise questions for further research and implications for policy and university management.