Skip to main content

Slovenian young researchers’ motivation for knowledge transfer

Abstract

A programme for the promotion of science and doctoral studies called the Young Researchers Training Programme has been developed in Slovenia. Since it began, the programme has been substantially funded and over 6,000 young people have participated in it. However, no evaluation of the programme’s effectiveness has yet been conducted. In this study we identified young researchers’ motivation for entering the programme, their assessment of the training and links to knowledge transfer into practice as the principal idea behind the programme. Two training groups, university based young researchers and company based young researchers, are compared in order to assess whether the type of training affects knowledge transfer. The analyses show that young researchers in the economy are more involved in direct knowledge transfer and their motivation to do so is mainly intrinsic. On the other hand, university based young researchers need extrinsic incentives to cooperate in projects in economic sector, for their motivation is more oriented towards academic research. Implications for Slovenia, as well as for other countries’ higher education policies, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Amara, N., Landry, R., & Halilem, N. (2013). Faculty consulting in natural sciences and engineering: Between formal and informal knowledge transfer. Higher Education, 65(3), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4, 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). A primer on organizational behavior (7th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7.

  6. Crespo, M., & Dridi, H. (2007). Intensification of university–industry relationship and its impact on academic research. Higher Education, 45, 61–84. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9046-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decter, M. H. (2009). Comparative review of UK–USA industry–university relationships. Education + Training, 51(8/9), 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dooley, L., & Kirk, D. (2007). University–industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2007). Raziskovanje v managementu [Management research: An introduction]. Koper: Faculty of Management.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gombač, J. (2009). Mladi raziskovalec – delovni konj na fakultetah? [Young researcher—A working horse at universities?]. Accessed November 20, 2012 from http://www.finance.si/264050/Mladi-raziskovalec—delovni-konj-na-fakultetah.

  17. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J, Jr, Couper, M. R., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hair, J. F, Jr. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kobal Grum, D., & Musek, J. (2009). Perspektive motivacije [Perspectives of motivation]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Košmrlj, K., & Arzenšek, A. (2012). The findings of the research project: An unpublished contribution to the conference “The young researchers: How to proceed?”. Ljubljana, May 30.

  22. Levin, D. Z., Kurtzberg, T. R., Phillips, K. W., & Lount, R. B, Jr. (2010). The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(2), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Likar, B., Macur, M., & Trunk-Širca, N. (2006). Systemic approach for innovative education process. Kybernetes, 35(7/8), 1071–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in higher education, 30(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New Jersey: Van Nostrand.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., & Brennan, M. (2011). An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 663–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Public Agency for Technology of the Republic of Slovenia. Public Notice “Young researchers from industryThe generation of 2008”. Accessed August 11, 2013 from http://www.tia.si/shared_files/Razpisi/2008/MR08/JavnirazpisMR08b.pdf.

  30. Republic of Slovenia: Government office for local self- government and regional policy. Development Operational Programme for Human Resources for 2007–2013. Accessed August 13, 2013 from http://www.svlr.gov.si/fileadmin/svlsrp.gov.si/pageuploads/KOHEZIJA/Programski_dokumenti/OP-ESS-POTRJENO_21_11_07.pdf.

  31. Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1996). Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Senaratne, S., Kagioglou, M., Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Aouad, G., & Bowden, A. (2005). Research knowledge transfer into teaching in the built environment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(6), 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Slovenian Research Agency. Young researchers. Accessed August 18, 2013 from http://www.arrs.gov.si/en/mr/predstavitev.asp.

  34. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: The diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Whelan, E., & Carcary, M. (2011). Integrating talent and knowledge management: Where are the benefits? Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 675–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wilkesmann, M., & Wilkesmann, U. (2011). Knowledge transfer as interaction between experts and novices supported by technology. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 41(2), 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wilkesmann, U., Wilkesmann, M., & Virgillito, A. (2009). The absence of cooperation is not necessarily defection: Structural and motivational constraints of knowledge transfer in a social dilemma situation. Organization Studies, 30(10), 1141–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 510–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Arzenšek.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Table 6 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) and Bartlett’s test for data adequacy
Table 7 Factor correlation matrix
Table 8 Variables included in factor analysis and analysis details
Table 9 Variables included in principal component analysis and analysis details
Table 10 Regression analyses model summaries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arzenšek, A., Košmrlj, K. & Širca, N.T. Slovenian young researchers’ motivation for knowledge transfer. High Educ 68, 185–206 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9702-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Knowledge transfer
  • Motivation
  • Slovenia
  • University–government model
  • Triple helix model
  • Young Researchers Training Programme