Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Lewinian Approach to Managing Barriers to University–Industry Collaboration

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Calls are made by governments, university management and industry to increase university–industry (U–I) collaboration to find solutions for societal and economic problems that are too complex to be tackled within one sector alone. Researchers are often expected to realise these ideas, but when it comes to everyday research and knowledge development, individuals may encounter barriers to accomplishing this. The paper presents an empirical study of researchers’ view on U–I collaboration. Our focus in the analysis, inspired by the Lewinian field theory, is on the hindering forces that might create barriers to collaboration from a researcher’s perspective. Contrary to the previously used approaches taken in force field analysis, we perform a qualitative study, which might be better suited for this framework. In the literature on U–I collaboration, ‘orientation-related’ and ‘transaction-related’ barriers have been identified. In our analysis, we discuss hindering forces on the individual, intra- and interorganisational levels. In total, we find 18 key areas to identify possible hinders for collaboration and based on a Lewinian perspective, we suggest that removing hindering forces can benefit U–I collaboration. The paper recognises the need to regard universities as equal partners in U–I collaboration for sustainable knowledge production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. and Costa, F.D. (2011) ‘University-industry research collaboration: A model to assess university capability’, Higher Education 62(2): 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agazarian, Y.M. (1997) System-Centered Therapy for Groups, New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1990) Overcomming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1997) ‘Kurt Lewin Award Lecture, 1997 Field theory as a basis for scholarly consulting’, Journal of Social Issues 53(4): 811–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2010) Organizational Traps. Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Athreye, S. (2016) ‘Introduction to the special section on patent use’, Research Policy 45(7): 1323–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O. and Nieminen, M. (2010) ‘University research funding and publication performance - An international comparison’, Research Policy 39(6): 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M. and Lawson, C. (2015) ‘The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK’, Research Policy 44(6): 1160–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeby, M. and Booth, C. (2000) ‘Networks and inter-organizational learning: a critical review’, The Learning Organization 7(2): 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. and Sandström, U. (2000) ‘Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system’, Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjursell, C., Dobers, P. and Ramsten, A. (2016). Samverkansskicklighet: För personlig och organisatorisk utveckling. [Collaboration skills: for personal and organizational development], Lund: Studentlitteratur.

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. and Salter, A. (2010) ‘Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration’, Research Policy 39(7): 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2011) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder (2nd ed.). [Social research methods], Malmö: Liber.

  • Burnes, B. and Cooke, B. (2013) ‘Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A review and re-evaluation’, International Journal of Management Reviews 15(4): 408–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaert, J., Landoni, P., van Looy, B. and Verganti, R. (2015) ‘Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches’, Research Policy 44(4): 990–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, S. and Shih, W. (2016) ‘Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships’, Research Policy 45(1): 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999) ‘An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution’, Academy of Management Review 24(3): 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L. and Karlsson, J.C. (2003) Att förklara samhället [To explain society], Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. and David, P.A. (1994) ‘Toward a new economics of science’, Research Policy 23(5): 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daza Campbell, T.I. and Slaughter, S. (1999) ‘Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university–industry relationships’, The Journal of Higher Education 70(3): 309–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch, F. and Neuhäusler, P. (2015) ‘Composition of inventor teams and technological progress – The role of collaboration between academia and industry’, Research Policy 44(7): 1360–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundel, U. (2013) Kurt Lewin’s metod Kraftfältsanalys i teori och praktik. En fallstudie av ett organisationsutvecklingsuppdrag på en akademisk teknisk institution. [Kurt Levin’s Force Field analysis method in theory and practice - A case study of an organization development assignment in an academic technical institution] Licentiate thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.

  • Haig, B.D. (2008) ‘An abductive perspective on theory construction’, The Journal of Theory Construction and Testing 12(1): 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012) ‘Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities’, Research Policy 41(2): 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012) ‘Performance-based university research funding systems’, Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohberger, J., Almeida, P. and Parada, P. (2015) ‘The direction of firm innovation: The contrasting roles of strategic alliances and individual scientific collaborations’, Research Policy 44(8): 1473–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M., Wang, C., Piperopoulos, P. and Zhang, M. (2015) ‘Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions’, Research Policy 44(3): 803–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1997) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The Qualitative Research Interview], Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K. and Salter, A. J. (2014) ‘The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration’, Research Policy 43(5): 867–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts. Field Theory in Social Science, Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkimattila, M., Junell, T. and Rantala, T. (2015) ‘Developing collaboration structures for university–industry interaction and innovations’, European Journal of Innovation Management 18(4): 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Carrión-García, A. and Vega-Jurado, J. (2009) ‘The effects of university–industry relationships and academic research on scientific performance: synergy or substitution?’ Research in Higher Education 50(8): 795–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G.D., Gianiodis, P.T., Phan, P.H. and Balkin, D.B. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do incentive systems matter?’ Journal of Technology Transfer 29(3–4): 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S.B. (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. The Jossey-Bass education series, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Schmoch, U. (1998)’Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields’, Research Policy 27(8): 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J.C., Coble, K.H. and Lusk, J.L. (2013) ‘Evaluating top faculty researchers and the incentives that motivate them’, Scientometrics 97(3): 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (2014) ‘Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research’, Qualitative Inquiry 20(8): 1045–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C. and Cappelen, K. (2014) ‘Exploring the mechanisms of knowledge transfer in university – industry collaborations: A study of companies, students and researchers’, Higher Education Quarterly 68(4): 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabharwal, M. and Hu, Q. (2013) ‘Participation in university-based research centers: Is it helping or hurting researchers?’ Research Policy 42(5): 1301–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, A. (2016) ‘University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort’, Research Policy 45(9): 1907–1922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E.H. (1996) ‘Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning’, Systems Practice 9(1): 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P.Y-T. and Scott, J. L. (2005) ‘An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer’, Journal of Knowledge Management 9(2): 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., Salter, A. and D’Este, P. (2012) ‘Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics perceptions of the barriers of working with Industry’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 36(3): 655–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Callaert, J. and Debackere, K. (2006) ‘Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?’ Research Policy 35(4): 596–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P., Lee, Y.-N. and Nagaoka, S. (2016) ‘Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation’, Research Policy 45(8): 1660–1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2016) ‘Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration’, Research Policy 45(1): 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., Larkin, C. and Lucey, B. M. (2017) ‘Universities, knowledge exchange and policy: A comparative study of Ireland and the UK’, Science and Public Policy 44(2): 174–185.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University, P O Box 1026, 551 11, Jönköping, Sweden

    Cecilia Bjursell

  2. School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden

    Annika Engström

Authors
  1. Cecilia Bjursell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Engström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Bjursell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjursell, C., Engström, A. A Lewinian Approach to Managing Barriers to University–Industry Collaboration. High Educ Policy 32, 129–148 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0074-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0074-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation