Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on academic research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on university research. The paper consists of recent follow-up research to an international comparative research project conducted in the 1990s. It deals specifically with the Québec (Canada) situation. Twenty-eight in-depth interviews were conducted in the winter of 2003 with university researchers and an additional five interviews with technology transfer officers. The interviews were conducted in six francophone higher education institutions in Québec. With regard to university–industry relationships, the interviews revealed that university researchers in scientific and technological fields conducted innovation-oriented research, which benefits their graduate students and the institution itself. Freedom of publication is somewhat conditioned by intellectual property constraints. Thus, a majority of university researchers adopt an “entrepreneurial ethos” which they find compatible with their academic values. The intensification of university–industry relationships may also have latent dysfunctional effects with regard to conflicts of interest, as some university researchers have created start-up companies which act both as research funding sources and as beneficiaries of research results. Thus, intellectual property and conflict of interest issues evolve in a grey zone and are often sources of stress and tension for researchers. However harsh some disputes may become over these issues, they are resolved, at least in the context analysed in this research, in ways that satisfy both the researcher and the institutions.

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. In contrast with this general finding, Bleiklie (2005) argues that the idea that university-industry ties aimed at substantially increasing the financial resources of universities by way of academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) belongs more to the realm of “ideology and discourse” and does not reflect “the way in which universities are operated and funded” (p. 54).

  2. Although Anderson’s (2001) article on university-industry relations cannot be considered a “state of the art” paper, it nevertheless discusses several important issues related to this domain.

  3. For Jansen (2002), what is crucial for the production of knowledge mode 2-style is the readiness and orientation of the partners to engage in new forms of knowledge production.

  4. The research data was gathered by the junior author in view of writing his doctoral dissertation (Dridi, 2005).

  5. The institutions chosen were: Université de Montréal, École des hautes études commerciales, École polytechnique, Université du Québec à Montréal, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Université de Sherbrooke.

  6. Several analysts and methodologists estimate that between twenty to thirty semi-structured interviews are sufficient to gather relevant and valid information (see Beaud, 1997; Mayer & Ouellet, 1991; Van der Maren, 1995).

  7. Several of the benefits resulting from university-industry relations identified by this research are also found elsewhere (see Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005).

  8. At least a quarter of respondents from Gulbrandsen and Smeby’s (2005) survey note that “contracts introduce new and interesting research topics in their department” (p. 941).

  9. For conflicts of interest in Academia and the contrasting attitudes of university researchers and administrators, see Daza-Campbell and Slaughter (1999).

  10. In a study funded by a pharmaceutical company, Dr Nancy Olivieri, a University of Toronto professor, found that the drug in question had unintended harmful side effects. The company demanded that the results be kept secret, but Olivieri refused and the firm threatened to sue her for breach of contract. In the early 2000s, Professor David Healy sued the University of Toronto for an alleged breach of contract in 2001. According to Healy, this was the first-ever legal action seeking redress for violation of academic freedom in matters of disclosure of data and information (See Healy, 2002).

References

  • Albert, M. (1999). Transformations des pratiques de recherche en sciences économiques et en sociologie dans deux universités québécoises: Instrumentalisation de la production du savoir? Thèse de doctorat, Département de sociologie, Faculté des arts et des sciences, Université de Montréal.

  • Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amblard, H., Bernoux P., Herreros G., & Livian Y.-F. (1996). Les nouvelles approches sociologiques. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S. (2001). The complex relations between the academy and industry: View from the literature [Special issue: The Social Role of Higher Education]. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 226–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association des universités et collèges du Canada. (2002). Les universités canadiennes: De solides assises pour l’innovation. Ottawa: AUCC.

  • Bartlett, T. (2005, November). Kansas faculty union wins battle in intellectual-property dispute. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25, A-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaud, J.-P. (1997). L’échantillonnage. In D. B. Gauthier (Eds.), Recherche sociale: De la problématique à la collecte des données (pp. 185–215). Sillery: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P. (1996). Les relations université-entreprise en France. Rapport au Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (2005). Organizing higher education in a knowledge society. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 31–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Gluck M., Louis K. S., & Wise D. (1986). University–industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. Science, 232(4735), 242–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education (p. 206). Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, H. (1996). Les relations université-entreprise en Ontario. Rapport au Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchbinder, H. (1993). The market oriented university and the changing role of knowledge. Higher Education, 26(3), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassier, M. (2002). L’appropriation des connaissances dans les partenariats de recherche entre laboratoires publics et entreprises: Quelques tendances récentes. Paris: CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claeys, A. (2000). Moderniser la gestion des universities: Quels outils pour quels enjeux? Mission d’évaluation et de contrôle. Paris: Assemblée nationale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (2003). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M. (1996). Les rapports université/entreprise: Une analyse comparative internationale. Rapport de recherche au CRSHC. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M. (2001). Tendances actuelles des politiques publiques à l’égard de l’enseignement supérieur: Une analyse comparative. Analyse des politiques, XXVII(3), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M. (2003). Une nouvelle révolution académique? L’échange des rôles de la triade: Université-entreprise-État. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 29(2), 375–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M. (2004). A second academic revolution?: Emergent configurations of university–industry–state relationships. La revue annuelle d’études canadiennes, Association japonaise d’études canadiennes, 24, 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M., & Friedberg E. (1977). L’acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSE. (2002). Les universités à l’heure du partenariat. Québec: Conseil supérieur de l’Éducation.

  • CST. (2001). Rapport de conjoncture 2001: Pour des régions innovantes. Québec: Conseil de la science et de la technologie.

  • Daza-Campbell, T. I., & 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 

  • Donaldson, L. (1995). Contingency theory. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dridi, H. (2005). Impacts de l’intensification des relations université-entreprise sur la pratique de recherche universitaire. Thèse de doctorat, Département d’administration et fondements de l’éducation, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université de Montréal.

  • Dridi, H., & Crespo M. (1999). Interacciones Universidad/Empresa: Aspectos políticos, estrategias y repercusiones. In A. González (Ed.), Políticas de la Educación (pp. 355–370). Murcia: Ed. Diego Marin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

    Article  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, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Webster A. (1998). Entrepreneurial science: The second academic revolution. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, & P. Healey (Eds.), Capitalizing knowledge. New intersections of industry and academia (pp. 21–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (1988). Entrepreneurship and higher education: Lessons for colleges, universities, and industry (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6.). Washington: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feola, C. (2000). Les universités de la communauté française entre stabilité et changement. Bruxelles: Ministère de la communauté française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy–industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean J., & House D. (2001). Changes in academy/industry/state industry: The creation and development of the networks of centres of excellence Minerva, 39, 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortier, P (1999). Les investissements publics dans la recherche universitaire: Comment les faire fructifier. Rapport du Groupe d’experts sur la commercialisation des résultats de la recherche universitaire. Conseil consultatif des sciences et de la technologie (CCST). Retrieved from http://acst-ccst.gc.ca/acst/comm/home.

  • Freitag, M. (1995). Le naufrage de l’université. Québec: Nuit blanche éditeur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag, M. (1999). L’université aujourd’hui: Les enjeux du maintien de sa mission institutionnelle d’orientation de la société. In G. Gagné (Dir.) Main Basse sur l’éducation (pp. 237–294). Québec: Éditions Nota Bene.

  • Friedberg, E. (1993, 1997). Le pouvoir et la règle. Dynamiques de l’action organisée. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Nowotny H., Limoges C., Trow M., Schwartzman S., & Scott P. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2002). Les chaires de recherche du Canada: Plus d’argent mais moins d’autonomie pour les universités. In R. Côté, & M. Venne (Dir.), L’annuaire du Québec 2003: Toute l’année politique, sociale, économique et culturelle (pp. 608–613). Montréal: FIDES.

  • Gingras, Y., & Godin B. (2000). Impact of collaboration on academic research. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y., & Lebel, J. (2003). Science et innovation: Nuages à l’horizon. In R. Côté, & M. Venne (Dir.), L’annuaire du Québec 2003: Toute l’année politique, sociale, économique et culturelle (pp. 738–742). Montréal: FIDES.

  • Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., Doré C., & Larivière V. (2003). The production of knowledge in Canada: Consolidation and diversification. Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3), 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Landry R. (1995). L’avenir de la collaboration scientifique au Québec: Une analyse basée sur la convergence d’indicateurs. Montréal: FCAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Limoges C. (1995). Les revues scientifiques québécoises: Une évaluation du programme de soutien aux revues du Fonds FCAR. Québec: FCAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouvernement du Québec (2002). Plan d’action. Gestion de la propriété intellectuelle dans les universités et les établissements du réseau de la santé et des services sociaux où se déroulent des activités de recherche. Québec: Ministère de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumport, O. J. (2002). Universities and knowledge: Restructuring the city of intellect. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 47–81). Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. (2001). Organizational perspectives on university–industry research relations. In J. Croissant, & S. Restivo (Eds.), Degrees of compromise (pp. 1–19). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harfi M, Rémy B (2001) Recherche et innovation: La France dans la compétition mondiale. Éducation et formations, (59), 9–20.

  • Healy, D. (2002). Conflicting interests in Toronto. Anatomy of a controversy at the interface of academia and industry. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 45(2), 250–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C. R. (1976). Organizational structure, extension and replications: The Aston programme II. Brookfield: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. D. (2002). Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African university. Higher Education, 43, 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (2002). Shockwave II: An introduction to the 21st century. In S. G. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 1–19). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (accepted). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer.

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc, M. (1991). Les relations université-entreprise entre l’État et le besoin. La revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 21(1), 54–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc, M., & Gingras Y. (1993). Les indicateurs du financement privé de la R-D universitaire au Québec: Critique de la méthode. La revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 23(1), 74–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The transformation of university–industry–government relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.sociology.org/content/vol.005.004/html.

  • Lorsch, J. W., & Morse J. J. (1974). Organisations and their members: A contingency approach. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Blumenthal D., Gluck M., & Soto M. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An explanation of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malissard, P., Gingras, Y., & Gemme, B. (2003). La commercialisation de la recherche. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, (148), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., & Ouellet F. (1991). Méthodologie de la recherché pour les intervenants sociaux. Boucherville: Gaëtan Morin éditeur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1982). Structure et dynamique des organisations. Paris: Éditions d’Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portaria, M. (1996). La formalisation des rapports entreprise-université et ses incidences sur l’organisation de la recherche. Thèse de doctorat, Département d’études en éducation et d’administration de l’éducation, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université de Montréal.

  • Powel, W. W., & Owen-Smith J. (2002). The new world of knowledge production in the life sciences. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 107–130). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, E., & Washburn, J. (2000). The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, 285(3), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N., & Nelson R. R. (1999). The emergence and standardization of university technology transfer offices: A case study of institutional change. New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheery, E. F., & Teece D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33, 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. (1993) Beyond basic science: Research university presidents’ narratives of science policy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, 278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., Archerd C. J., & Campbell T. I. D. (2004). Boundaries and quandaries: How professors negotiate market relations. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 129–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., Campbell T., Holleman M., & Morgan E. (2002). The ‘traffic’ in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 27(2), 282–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie X. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trépanier, M., & Ipeersiel M.-P. (2003). Hierarchie de la crédibilité et autonomie de la recherche: L’Impensé des analyses des relations université-entreprise. Actes de la recherche en sciences socials, 148, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tudiver, N. (1999). Universities for sale. Resisting corporate control over Canadian higher education. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk-Bicakci, L., & Brint S. (2005). University–industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low- and middle-level performers. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Maren, J. -M. (1995). Méthodes de recherche pour l’éducation. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylijolki, O. -H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher education, 45, 307–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuker, L. G., & Darby M. R. (1997). The economists’ case for biomedical research. In C. Barfield, & B. Smith (Eds.), The future of biomedical research. Washington: AEI.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the Editorial Board for their most helpful comments and suggestions. However, the authors assume the entire responsibility of the contents of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, H3C 3J7, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Manuel Crespo & Houssine Dridi

Authors
  1. Manuel Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Houssine Dridi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Crespo.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this paper was presented at CHER 18th Annual Conference, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, September 1–3, 2005.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crespo, M., Dridi, H. Intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on academic research. High Educ 54, 61–84 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9046-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9046-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation