THE BARRIERS AGAINST EFFECTIVE UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY COLLABORATION: A STUDY IN TURKISH AVIATION INDUSTRY

Year 2019, , 35 - 43, 30.03.2019

Ozge Peksatici Hande Sinem Ergun

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2019.1032

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this study is to explore the current situation of collaboration and knowledge transfer between aviation industry and

higher education institutions offering aviation management programs in Turkey and to identify the perceived barriers against effective

collaborations and knowledge transfer from industry point of view.

Methodology - Semi-structured interviews were used to meet the research objectives. The data was analyzed with the help of MaxQda

qualitative data analysis program.

Findings - The findings reveal that there is poor collaboration and knowledge transfer between aviation management departments of

universities and aviation industry in Turkey. The main barriers against effective collaboration and knowledge transfer from aviation

industry actors’ perspectives are the lack of research orientation of the academy, lack of industry experience and practical knowledge of

the academicians, and lack of commercial mindset of the academicians. In addition, academy and industry having different motivations for

collaborations, academy being slow in adapting to changes and poor collaboration culture of the industry are other important barriers

identified by the industry actors.

Conclusion - It is expected that the implications brought by this study would help aviation industry and aviation academy partners in

developing sustainable collaborations.

Keywords

University-industry collaborations, knowledge transfer, Turkish aviation industry, higher education, qualitative study

References

• Ankrah, S., Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 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): 50—65
• Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
• Bekkers, R. N. A., Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10): 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): 858–68.
• Cresswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd Sage; Thousand Oaks: CA.
• Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M. (2010). Knowledge-based inter-organizational collaborations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3): 348—358.
• D’este, P., Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3): 316-339.
• DGCA. (2017). Sivil havacilik genel müdürlüğü faaliyet rapor. Retrieved from http://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/pdf/kurumsal/faaliyet/2017.pdf.
• Draghici, A, Baban, C. F., Gogana, M. L., Ivascua, L. V. (2015). A knowledge management approach for the university-industry collaboration in open innovation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23: 23-32
• Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., Torres, A. (2010). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37(7): 513-526.
• George, G., Zahra, S. A., Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6): 577-609.
• Gopalakrishnan, S., Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organisation factors. IEEE Transaction of Engineering Management, 51(1):57-69.
• Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4): 375—387.
• Guimón, J. (2013). Promoting university-industry collaboration in developing countries. World Bank. Retrieved from http://innovationpolicyplatform.org/sites/default/files/rdf_imported_documents/PromotingUniversityIndustryCollaborationInDevelopingCountries.pdf
• Harman, G., Sherwell, V. (2002). Risks in university–industry research links and the implications for university management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(1): 37-51.
• Joseph, K. J., Abraham, V. (2009). University-industry interactions and innovation in India: patterns, determinants, and effects in select industries. Seoul Journal of Economics, 22(4): 467-498.
• Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., Lindell, P. (1996). Growth factors in technology-based spin-offs: A Swedish study. Piccola Impresa/Small Business Journal, 10(3): 1-25.
• Lee, J., Win, H. N. (2004). Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24(5), 433-442.
• Levin, R. C. (1988). Appropriability, R&D spending and technological performance. The American Economic Review, 78(2): 424-428.
• Logar, C. M., Ponzurick, T. G., Spears, J. R., France, K. R. (2001). Commercializing intellectual property: A university—industry alliance for new product development. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(4): 206-217.
• 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): 410-429.
• OSYM. (2018). Merkezi yerlestirme ile ogrenci alan yuksekogretim lisans programları. Retrieved from https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2018/YKS/YER/Tablo4MinMax_31082018.pdf
• Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6): 343-373.
• Pavitt, K. L. R. (1988). International patterns of technological accumulation. In Hood, N & Vahlne J. E. (Eds), Strategies in global competition. London: Croom Helm.
• Rasiah, R., Govindaraju, V. G. R. (2009). University - industry R&D collaboration in the automotive, biotechnology and electronics firms in Malaysia. Seoul Journal of Economics, 22(4): 529-550.
• Salter, A. J., B. R. Martin (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30(3): 509-539.
• Santoro, M. D., Betts, S. C. (2002). Making industry-university partnerships work. Research Technology Management, 45(3): 42- 46.
• Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry—university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7): 1163—1180.
• Santoro, M. D., Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within industry—university collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3-4): 299—319.
• Schiller, D. (2006). Nascent innovation systems in developing countries: University responses to regional needs in Thailand. Industry and Innovation, 13(4): 481-504.
• Schiller, D., Lee, K. (2015). Are university-industry linkages meaningful for catch-up? A comparative analysis of five Asian countries. In Albuquerque, E., Wilson, S., Kruss,G. Lee, K. (Eds.) Developing National Systems of Innovation: University–Industry Interactions in the Global South (pp. 55-92). Cheltenham: Elgar.
• Sherwood, A. L., Butts, S. B., Kacar, S. L. (2004). Partnering for knowledge: A learning framework for university—industry collaboration. Midwest Academy of Management, 2004 Annual Meeting, 1—17.
• Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1): 27-48.
• Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2): 115-142.
• Smirnova, Y. V. (2015). University–industry knowledge transfer in an emerging economy: Evidence from Kazakhstan. Science and Public Policy, 43(5): 702–712.
• Striukova, L., Rayna, T. (2015). University-industry knowledge exchange: An exploratory study of open innovation in UK universities. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4): 471-492.
• Teece, D. (1987). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In: Teece, D. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge. Ballinger, Cambridge: MA.
• Ulrich, D. (1998). Intellectual Capital = Competence X Commitment. Sloan Management Review, 39: 15-26.
• Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37(10): 1854–1864.