A Review on University-Industry Collaborations from an Institutional Theory and Institutional Resilience Perspective

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 5 Sayı: Innovative Conceptual Approaches to Social Sciences, 55 - 80

Deniz Dirik , Ahenk Aktan

https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1554501

Öz

Institutional theory posits that organizations are in a reciprocal relationship with their environment, and in this sense, organizations are both shaped by their environment and reconstruct the existing environment with their actions. In an environment where actors mutually and reciprocally influence each other, there are substantial literature studies showing that the institutional effects may be an important factor for determining interfirm collaborations. However, the literature on institutional explanations for the establishment or non-formation of collaborations between university and industry in such environmental settings is relatively limited. In that regard, we employ institutional approach as a conceptual basis for the understanding of the processes of university- industry interactions. In our conceptual study, we aim to extend the institutional perspective by focusing on interorganizational collaborations in terms of university-industry collective interactions where the actors mutually concerned with the normative, coercive, and mimetic pressures. We introduce the concept of institutional resilience to Triple Helix Model to propose some new research avenues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

university-industry collaboration, institutional theory, isomorphism mechanisms, triple-helix model, innovation, national innovation systems, institutional resilience

Kurumsal Kuram ve Kurumsal Dayanıklılık Perspektifinden Üniversite-Sanayi İş Birliklerine Yönelik Bir İnceleme

Öz

Kurumsal kuram, örgütlerin çevreleriyle karşılıklı bir ilişki içinde olduğunu ve bu bağlamda örgütlerin çevreleri tarafından şekillendirildiği gibi, kendi eylemleriyle mevcut çevreyi yeniden inşa ettiklerini öne sürer. Aktörlerin birbirini karşılıklı olarak etkilediği bir ortamda, kurumsal etkilerin, şirketler arası iş birliklerini belirlemede önemli bir faktör olabileceğini gösteren geniş bir literatür mevcuttur. Ancak, bu tür çevresel koşullarda üniversite ve sanayi arasındaki iş birliklerinin kurulmasına veya kurulamayışına dair kurumsal açıklamaların bulunduğu literatür nispeten sınırlıdır. Bu kapsamda çalışmamızda, üniversite-sanayi etkileşim süreçlerini anlamak için kavramsal bir temel olarak kurumsal yaklaşımı ele almaktayız. Kavramsal nitelikteki çalışmamızda, aktörlerin normatif, zorlayıcı ve taklitçi baskılarla karşı karşıya kaldığı üniversite-sanayi kolektif etkileşimleri açısından kurumsal perspektifin araçlarını kullanarak yeni çalışma önermeleri geliştirmekteyiz. Üniversite-sanayi iş birliklerini anlamada sıklıkla kullanılan Üçlü Sarmal Modeli’ne kurumsal dayanıklılık kavramını ekleyerek yeni araştırma alanları önermekteyiz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

üniversite-sanayi iş birliği, kurumsal kuram, izomorfizm mekanizmaları, üçlü sarmal modeli, inovasyon, ulusal inovasyon sistemleri, kurumsal dayanıklılık

Kaynakça

• Adomako, S., Amankwah- Amoah, J., Debrah, Y. A., Khan, Z., Chu, I., & Robinson, C. (2021). Institutional voids, economic adversity, and inter-firm cooperation in an emerging market: the mediating role of government R&D support. British Journal of Management, 32(1), 40-58.
• Ankrah, S., & AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
• Balbachevsky, E., & Kohtamäki, V. (2020). University, science and the new (and old) academic roles: Inner sources of institutional resilience. Sociologias, 22(54), 64-86.
• Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291-301.
• Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 1, 69-89.
• Bergenholtz, C., & Bjerregaard, T. (2014). How institutional conditions impact university–industry search strategies and networks. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(3), 253-266.
• Biscotti, D., Lacy, W. B., Glenna, L. L., & Welsh, R. (2012). Constructing "Disinterested" academic science: Relational work in university-industry research collaborations. Politics & Science, 40(2), 273-308.
• Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100-108.
• Boardman, P. C. (2009). Government centrality to university–industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, 38(10), 1505-1516.
• Brito, C. M. (2001). Towards an institutional theory of the dynamics of industrial networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(3), 150-166.
• Brundin, E., Wigren, C., Isaacs, E., Friedrich, C., & Visser, K. (2008). Triple helix networks in a multicultural context: Triggers and barriers for fostering growth and sustainability. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 77-98.
• Bruneel, J., D' Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
• Cai, Y. (2015). What contextual factors shape ‘innovation in innovation’? Integration of insights from the triple helix and the institutional logics perspective. Social Science Information, 54(3), 299-326.
• Cai, Y., & Lattu, A. (2022). Triple helix or quadruple helix: Which model of innovation to choose for empirical studies?. Minerva 60, 257-280.
• Cruz, L. B., Delgado, N. A., Leca, B., & Gond, J. (2015). Institutional resilience in extreme operating environments: The role of institutional work. Business and Society, 55(7), 970-1016.
• D'Este, P., & Perkman, M. (2011). Why do academics, engage with industry? The entreprenurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316-339.
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160
• 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(2), 109-123.
• Freitas, I. M. B., Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2013). Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions. Research Policy, 42(1), 50-62.
• Fritsch, M., & Stephan, A. (2005). Regionalization of innovation policy—Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 34(8), 1123-1127.
• Gherghina, S., Volintiru, C., & Sigurjonsson T. O. (2023). Making a difference: The effects of institutioal resilience in society during Covid-19. European Political Science, 22, 426- 435.
• Gibson, D. V., & Foss, L. (2017). Developing the entrepreneurial university: architecture and institutional theory. World Technopolis Review, 6(1), 3.1-3.15.
• Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2009). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money and reputation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 401-423.
• Hillerbrand, R., & Werker, C. (2019). Values in university- industry collaborations: The case of academics working at universities of technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 1633-1656.
• Hoejmose, S. U., Grosvold, J., & Millington, A. (2014). The effect of institutional pressure on cooperative and coercive ‘Green’ supply chain practices. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 20(4), 215-224.
• Hofman, P. S., Blome, C., Schleper, M. C., & Subramanian, N. (2020). Supply chain collaboration and eco-innovations: An institutional perspective from China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2734-2754.
• Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2018). Partner selection and university-industry linkages: Assessing small firms' initial perceptions of the credibility of their partners. Technovation, 78, 15-26.
• Khurshid, A., Muzaffar, A., & Bhutta, M. K. S. (2021). Institutional pressures and supplier involvement: A perspective on sustainability. Operations Management Research, 14, 123-137.
• Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. & Welpe, I. M. (2018). University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: The moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1696-1724.
• Lee, H. L. (2000). Creating value through supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management Review, 4, 30-36.
• Lundvall, B. A. (2007). National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 95-119.
• Mahdad, M., Minh, T. T., Bogers, M. L. A. M., & Piccaluga, A. (2020). Joint university-industry laboratories through the lens of proximity dimensions: Moving beyond geographical proximity. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(4), 433-456.
• Mellat-Parast, M. (2015). An institutional theory of quality outcomes in strategic supply chain partnership. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 32(4), 346-360
• Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Rotolo, D. (2015). Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry. Management Decision, 53(9), 2088-2106.
• Nakamura, M., Vertinsky, I., & Zietsma, C. (1997). Does Culture Matter in inter-firm cooperation? Research consortia in Japan and the USA. Managerial and Decision Economics, 18(2), 153-175.
• OECD. (2020). Development co-operation report 2020: Learning from crises, building resilience. OECD Publishing.
• Peksatici, Ö., & Ergun, H. S. (2019). The gap between academy and industry - A qualitative study in Turkish aviation context. Journal of Air Transport Management, 79, 101687.
• Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62-63, 42-54.
• Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019). What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 89, 221-250.
• Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2002). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university- industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
• Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W., & Zilber, T. B. (2010). Organizations and their institutional environments—bringing meaning, values, and culture back. In: Introduction to the special research forum. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1234-1240.
• Watkins, A., Papaioannou, T., Mugwagwa, J., & Kale, D. (2015). National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: A critical review of the literature. Research Policy, 44(8), 1407-1418.
• Yıldırım, A. (2018). Within the context of the management of organizational change "Environment - harmonization relationship." Evaluation between new institutional theory and source dependency theories. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Socıal Sciences, 44, 89-102.
• Yılık, M. A., & Kondakçı, Y. (2024). Technology development zones as a form of university-industry relations: A multiple-case study. Higher Education Policy, 37, 437-459.
• Zhang, Y. (2023). Exploring interfirm collaboration processes of small- and medium-sized enterprises: An institutional logics perspective. Entrepreneurshıp & Regional Development, 35(3-4), 402-423.