Higher Education Policy

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 493–514 | Cite as

Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange

  • Lidia Borrell-Damian
  • Timothy Brown
  • Andrew Dearing
  • Josep Font
  • Stephen Hagen
  • Janet Metcalfe
  • John Smith
Article

Abstract

This paper summarises the findings of the first stage of a pan-European study of collaborative doctoral training, which has examined programmes involving private sector partners. While studying for a doctorate has traditionally been seen as preparation for a job in academic teaching and research, for many candidates today (currently around 50%) this is a prelude to a wide range of careers. New programmes aim to offer the rigour of the conventional doctorate while giving more exposure to the nature of research in other sectors of the economy. Our analysis has revealed that these programmes are increasingly driven by the development of more strategic approaches to collaborative research and knowledge exchange. On the basis of the experiences reported by stakeholders, the paper suggests working practices and supporting policy measures that can address the (potentially conflicting) requirements for a high quality of education, sound research and adequate preparation for diverse career pathways. The paper also highlights the need for better data on, and more systematic tracking of, career pathways to improve confidence in the quality and suitability of all types of doctorate courses.

Keywords

doctoral programmes professional development research utilisation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the European Commission contribution to this project sponsored under a Specific Support Action within the European Union's Sixth Framework Programme. The authors also acknowledge the support provided by Edwige Chassagneux, who performed much of the work associated with the corporate interviews while separately studying for her Ph.D. under the French CIFRE system.

References

  1. Akay, A. (2008) ‘A renaissance in engineering PhD education’, European Journal of Engineering Education 33: 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caraça, J., Lundvall, B.-A. and Mendonça, B. (2009) ‘The changing role of science in the innovation process, from Queen to Cinderella’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. (2006) China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology, Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coombs, R. and Georghiou, L. (2002) ‘A new industrial ecology’, Science 296: 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dearing, A. (2007) ‘Enabling Europe to innovate’, Science 315: 344–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission. (1972) ‘Objectives and instruments of a common policy for scientific research and technological development’, COM (1972) 700.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2000) Towards a European Research Area COM, p. 6.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2006) Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation COM, p. 208.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2008) Recommendation on the Management of Intellectual Property in Knowledge Transfer Activities and Code of Practice for Universities and Other Public Research Organisations COM, p.1329.Google Scholar
  11. Fenge, L.A. (2009) ‘Professional Doctorates — a better route for researching professionals?’ Social Work Education 28 (2): 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagen, S. (2008) ‘From Tech Transfer to Knowledge Exchange: European Universities in the Marketplace’, in L. Engwall and D. Weaire (eds.) The University in the Market Vol. 84. Wenner-Gren International Series, London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harman, G. (2002) ‘Producing PhD graduates in Australia for the knowledge economy’, Higher Education Research and Development 21: 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, B. and Murray, R. (2004) ‘New routes to the PhD: cause for concern?’ Higher Education Quarterly 58: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kentish, S.E., Sharkey, A.G., Gravina, J.L. and Shallcross, D.C. (2006) ‘The development of appropriate generic skills in research intensive higher degree students’, Education for Chemical Engineers 1: 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolmos, A., Kofoed, L.B. and Du, X.Y. (2008) ‘Phd student's work conditions and study environment in university- and industry-based Phd programmes’, European Journal of Engineering Education 33: 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kwiram, A.L. (2006) ‘Time for Reform?’, in C.M. Golde and G.E. Walker (eds.) Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, A., Brennah, M. and Green, B. (2009) ‘Re-imagining doctoral education: professional Doctorates and beyond’, Higher Education Research and Development 28: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Manathunga, C. and Lant, P. (2006) ‘How do we ensure good Phd student outcomes?’ Education for Chemical Engineers 1: 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mowery, D. (2007) ‘University-Industry Research Collaboration and Technology Transfer since 1980’, in S. Yusuf and K. Nabeshima (eds.) How Universities Promote Economic Growth, Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  22. Neumann, R. (2005) ‘Doctoral differences: professional Doctorates and PhDs compared’, Journal of Higher Education Policy Management 27: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD. (2002) Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2007) Labour Market Characteristics and International Mobility of Doctorate Holders: Results for Seven Countries, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. OECD. (2008a) Encouraging Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2008b) Reviews of Innovation Policy China, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, J. (2008) ‘Quality and standards: the challenge of the professional doctorate’, Higher Education in Europe 33: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Todtling, F., Lehner, P. and Kaufmann, A. (2009) ‘Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?’ Technovation 29: 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winter, R., Griffiths, M. and Green, K. (2000) ‘The academic qualities of practice: what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD’, Studies of Higher Education 25: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lidia Borrell-Damian
    • 1
  • Timothy Brown
    • 2
  • Andrew Dearing
    • 3
  • Josep Font
    • 4
  • Stephen Hagen
    • 5
  • Janet Metcalfe
    • 6
  • John Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.European University AssociationBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Mobile Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research, University of SurreyGuildfordUK
  3. 3.European Industrial Research Management AssociationParisFrance
  4. 4.Departament d’Enginyeria Química, ETSEQ, Universitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain
  5. 5.University of Wales, Caerleon CampusNewportUK
  6. 6.Vitae, CRAC, Sheraton House, Castle ParkCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations