Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The multi-level process of trust and learning in university–industry innovation collaborations

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Successful university–industry collaborations require high levels of trust among participants, yet achieving this goal is complex. In this study, we provide a fine-grained qualitative analysis of thirty interviews from four collaborative, government-funded case studies over a 2-year period to analyze how trust can facilitate and/or impede project outcomes. We identified two levels of trust (individual and organizational), at multiple stages of the collaboration. Scientists’ reputation and shared values about information sharing helped build trust among individual scientists, while organizational-level trust centered on efficiency, including alignment with contract provisions and time commitment to the project. Our analysis shows that only one project had a positive outcome, demonstrating that the interaction of trust across levels and over time helps explain collaborative success or lack thereof. Such a holistic perspective can widen understanding of the outcomes of university–industry collaborative efforts.

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

Notes

  1. Israel is ranked 20th on the 2018 Global Competitive Report and first in its region. According to the GCR (2018) report, "The country has grown to become one of the world’s innovation hubs, thanks to a very strong innovation ecosystem (10th best in the world)." The R&D expenditure is very high (4.3% of GDP). This can explain the rank of first worldwide on the index of growth on innovative companies (2018: 298). In addition, this report shows that Israel is the country where entrepreneurial failure is an accepted attitude, perhaps because entrepreneurial risks are so high. In addition, the financial market is well developed. The availability of venture capital is ranked second in the world, allowing strong support for the innovative private sector. Israel has also a strong innovation ecosystem and is ranked fifth on business dynamism and 16th on innovation capabilities worldwide.

  2. Some people left the project, the firm or the university, and some were unavailable to be interviewed at T2.

References

  • Arza, V., & Carattoli, M. (2017). Personal ties in university–industry linkages: A case-study from Argentina. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(4), 814–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer,27(1), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2006). Creating venture capital industries that co-evolve with high tech: Insights from an extended industry life cycle perspective of the Israeli experience. Research Policy,35(10), 1477–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellini, E., Piroli, G., & Pennacchio, L. (2018). Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: Empirical evidence from ICT firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–25.

  • Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management,14(1), 93–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly,18(6), 606–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorev, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2006). Success in Israeli high-tech start-ups. Critical factors and process. Technovation,26(2), 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. (Ed.). (2001). Trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy,26(4–5), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daellenbach, U. S., & Davenport, S. J. (2004). Establishing trust during the formation of technology alliances. The Journal of Technology Transfer,29(2), 187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies,22(2), 251–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. (2010). Leader-member exchange, trust, and performance in national science foundation industry/university cooperative research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer,35(5), 511–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Zubielqui, G. C., Jones, J., & Audretsch, D. (2018). The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer,43, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,50(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Puumalainen, K. (2008). The role of trust in organisational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management,11(2), 160–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, J. S., & del-Palacio, I. (2011). Global clusters of innovation: The case of Israel and Silicon valley. California Management Review,53(2), 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,5(1), 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippetti, A., & Savona, M. (2017). University–industry linkages and academic engagements: Individual behaviours and firms’ barriers Introduction to the special section. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(4), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (1973). Professions and the Occupation Principal. In E. Freidson (Ed.), The professions and their prospects (pp. 19–38). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel, A., Shefer, D., Koschatzky, K., & Walter, G. H. (2001). Firm characteristics, location and regional innovation: A comparison between Israeli and German industrial firms. Regional Studies,35(5), 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel, A., Shefer, D., & Roper, S. (2003). Public policy, locational choice and the innovation capability of high-tech firms: A comparison between Israel and Ireland. Papers in Regional Science,82(2), 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation,6(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management,38(4), 1167–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. New Jersey: Blackwell Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehman, J., Trevino, L. K., & Garud, R. (2013). Values work: A process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 84–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva,47(1), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giaretta, E. (2014). The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: An Italian science park experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer,39(5), 675–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology,19(6), 588–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods,16(1), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwick, J., Anderson, A. R., & Cruickshank, D. (2013). Trust formation processes in innovative collaborations: Networking as knowledge building practices. European Journal of Innovation Management,16(1), 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B., Lerner, M., & Raban, Y. (2006). Social capital and the linkages of high-tech companies to the military defense system: Is there a signaling mechanism?. Small Business Economics, 27(4-5), 419–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, C. X., Chua, R. Y., Kotabe, M., & Murray, J. Y. (2011). Effects of cultural ethnicity, firm size, and firm age on senior executives’ trust in their overseas business partners: Evidence from China. Journal of International Business Studies,42(9), 1150–1173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerler, W. A., & Killough, L. N. (2009). The effects of satisfaction with a client’s management during a prior audit engagement, trust, and moral reasoning on auditors’ perceived risk of management fraud. Journal of Business Ethics,85(2), 109–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E., & Montgomery, K. (2011). The Meaning of Regulation in a Changing Academic Profession. In J. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American Academic Profession: Changing forms and functions (pp. 295–311). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P., & Oliver, A. L. (2000). From handshake to contract: Trust, intellectual property and the social structure of academic research. In R. Bachmann & C. Lane (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. (2003). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logar, N., Anadon, L. D., & Narayanamurti, V. (2014). Semiconductor research corporation: A case study in cooperative innovation partnerships. Minerva,52(2), 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looy, B. V., Debackere, K., & Andries, P. (2003). Policies to stimulate regional innovation capabilities via university–industry collaboration: An analysis and an assessment. R&D Management,33(2), 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkimattila, M., Junell, T., & Rantala, T. (2015). Developing collaboration structures for university–industry interaction and innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management,18(4), 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, T. J., Eddleston, K. A., Friar, J. H., & Deeds, D. (2015). The evolution of interorganizational relationships in emerging ventures: An ethnographic study within the new product development process. Journal of Business Venturing,30(1), 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2017). University business models in disequilibrium–engaging industry and end users within university technology transfer processes. R&D Management,47(3), 458–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meseri, O., & Maital, S. (2001). A survey analysis of university-technology transfer in Israel: Evaluation of projects and determinants of success. The Journal of Technology Transfer,26(1–2), 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A., & Mizushima, A. (1989). Global R&D management. R&D Management,19(2), 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, H., Halla, M., & Alin, P. (2015). Openness in university–industry collaboration: Probing managerial perceptions. European Journal of Innovation Management,18(4), 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. University Press: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, K. (1992). Professional dominance and the threat of corporatization: The impact of physicians as the administrative elite in health care. Current Research on Occupations and Professions,7, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. V., & Rose, J. (2009). Building trust—Evidence from Vietnamese entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,24(2), 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojasalo, J. (2008). Management of innovation networks: A case study of different approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management,11(1), 51–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. L. (1997). On the nexus of organizations and professions: Networking through trust. Sociological Inquiry,67(2), 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. L. (2009). Networks for learning and knowledge creation in biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. L., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implications for studying inter-organizational networks. International Studies of Management and Organization,27(4), 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. L., & Montgomery, K. (2001). A system cybernetic approach to the dynamics of individual-and organizational-level trust. Human Relations,54(8), 1045–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (Eds.). (2008). How firms source knowledge from universities: Partnerships versus contracting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philbin, S. (2008). Process model for university–industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management,11(4), 488–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science,22(4), 1087–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2003). Reactions to perceived inequity in US and Dutch interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal,46(3), 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2013). A cross-level process theory of trust development in inter-organizational relationships. Strategic Organization,11(3), 281–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review,32(2), 344–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (trans: Walsh, G., Lehnert F.). Evanston, IL. Evanston: North Western University Press. (Original German work published 1932).

  • Schutz, A. (1973). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (Broderson A. Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-Up Nation. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., Larsson, R., Kremershof, I., & Sitkin, S. B. (2011). Trust dynamics in acquisitions: A case survey. Human Resource Management,50(5), 575–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Global Competitive Report (2018). Retrieved January, 2019 from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitveness-report-2018.

  • Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy,34(8), 1203–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry,16(10), 837–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (2001). Innovation in Israel 1968–1997: A comparative analysis using patent data. Research Policy,30(3), 363–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.

  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,9(2), 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior,8, 53–111.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel

    Amalya L. Oliver & Shimrit Barda

  2. Professor of the Graduate Division, Emerita Professor of Organizations and Management, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    Kathleen Montgomery

Authors
  1. Amalya L. Oliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shimrit Barda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amalya L. Oliver.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work was supported by funds from the Israeli Science Foundation and The Halbert Center, Hebrew University provided to the first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oliver, A.L., Montgomery, K. & Barda, S. The multi-level process of trust and learning in university–industry innovation collaborations. J Technol Transf 45, 758–779 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09721-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09721-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation