Advertisement

Higher Education Policy

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 109–128 | Cite as

Senior Industry Practitioners as Part-Time Visiting Professors: The Various Benefits of Collaboration

  • Malin HenningssonEmail author
  • Lars Geschwind
Original Article

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of knowledge interactions, particularly personnel mobility, between university and industry. More specifically, this paper studies the appointment of senior industry practitioners as part-time visiting professors at universities, in the role of adjunct professors. The paper relies on qualitative data, documents and 29 interviews, all from two Swedish universities. The findings highlight a distinction between the approaches from top and local management. Top university management has institutionalised an established practice of appointing adjunct professors, but the appointments still rely on personal networks at local level. The paper also shows that benefits generally applied to university–industry engagement, such as learning, access to in-kind resources and access to funding, are applicable. Furthermore, two additional perceived benefits come to the fore. Firstly, adjunct professors are appointed to increase the visibility of the university, and secondly, they undertake an essential part of the workload in some environments.

Keywords

university–industry relations personnel mobility knowledge interactions human resources organisational actor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Knowledge Foundation and Riksbankens Jubiluemsfond. The authors would also like to thank Per Fagrell for his contribution to the study.

References

  1. Arza, V. (2010) ‘Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: Conceptual framework inspired by Latin America’, Science and Public Policy 37(7): 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekkers, R. and Bodas Freitas, I.M. (2008) ‘Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?’, Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broström, A. (2010) ‘Firms’ rationales for interaction with research universities and the principles for public co-funding’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 37(3): 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunsson, N. (1986). ‘Organizing for inconsistencies: On organizational conflict, depression and hypocrisy as substitutes for action’. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 2(3–4): 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  6. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairessec, J. (1998) ‘Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7(2): 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Este, P. and Perkmann, M. (2011) ‘Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Fuentes, C., and Dutrénit, G. (2012) ‘Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit’, Research Policy 41(9): 1666–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dooley, L. and Kirk, D. (2007) ‘University-industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures’, European Journal of Innovation Management 10(3): 316–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2017) Horizon 2020 Sections, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/h2020-sections, accessed 23 February 2017.
  12. Fagrell, P., Geschwind, L. and Jörnesten, A. (2016) ‘Industrial adjunct professors in Sweden: Meeting many goals despite unexpressed expectations’, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 2(2–3), published online 29 November 2016,  https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.31947.Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Hidalgo, A.C. (1992). Det traditionella och det ‘andra’ universitet: en början till samspel? [The traditional and the ‘other’ university: a start for interaction?], Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  15. Huisman, J. and Currie, J. (2004) ‘Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water?’ Higher Education 48(4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlsson, S. and Ryttberg, M. (2016) ‘Those who walk the talk: The role of administrative professionals in transforming universities into strategic actors’, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 2(2–3), published online 259 November 2016,  https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.31537.Google Scholar
  17. Kosmützky, A. and Krücken, G. (2015) ‘Sameness and difference’, International Studies of Management and Organization 45(2): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krücken, G. (2003) ‘Learning the “New, New Thing”: On the role of path dependency in university structures’, Higher Education 46(3): 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krücken, G., Blümel, A., and Kloke, K. (2013) ‘The managerial turn in higher education? On the interplay of organizational and occupational change in German academia’, Minerva 51(4): 417–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krücken, G., and Meier, F. (2006) ‘Turning the university into an organizational actor’, in G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer and H. Hwang (eds.) Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–257.Google Scholar
  21. Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) InterviewsLearning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.), California: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, Y.S. (2000) ‘The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An Empirical Assessment’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maassen, P. and Stensaker, B. (2011) ‘The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications’, Higher Education 61(6): 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magnell, M., Geschwind, L. and Kolmos, A. (2016) ‘Faculty perspectives on the inclusion of work-related learning in engineering curricula’, European Journal of Engineering Education, published online 27 October 2016,  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1250067.Google Scholar
  25. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R. and Hughes, A. (2013) ‘Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations’, Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richardson, G. (1989) Den forskningspolitiska paradoxen: central planering och lokal profilering i 1980-talets högskoleforskning [The paradox of research policy: Central planning and local profiling in the 1980s university research], Projektrapport 1989:1. Stockholm: UHÄ.Google Scholar
  27. Royal Academy of Engineering (2016) Visiting professors, http://www.raeng.org.uk/grants-and-prizes/schemes-for-people-in-industry/visiting-professors-in-innovation, accessed 21 October 2016.
  28. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M. and Fröhlich, J. (2002) ‘Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants’, Research Policy 31(3): 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott, W.R. (2013) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. SFS 1992:1434 Högskolelag [Higher Education Act], Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  31. SFS 1993:100. Högskoleförordning [Higher Education Ordinance], Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  32. SUHF (2013) Adjungeringar vid svenska lärosäten [Adjunct positions at Swedish universities], PM 2013-06-26 (Dnr: 13/33), Stockholm: SUHF.Google Scholar
  33. Swedish Higher Education Authority (2017) Universitet och högskolor, årsrapport 2017 [Universities and university colleges, yearbook 2017], Stockholm: Swedish Higher Education Authority.Google Scholar
  34. Vinnova (2016) Metoder och kriterier för bedömning av prestation och kvalitet i lärosätenas samverkan med det omgivande samhället [Methods and criteria for assessment of achivements and quality of universities’ collaboration with the surrounding society], Final report dnr 2013-03216, Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
  35. Weick, K.E. (1976) ‘Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westnes, P., Hatakenaka, S., Gjelsvik, M. and Lester, R.K. (2009) ‘The role of universities in strengthening local capabilities for innovation—a comparative case study’, Higher Education Policy 22(4): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LearningKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Knowledge FoundationStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations