Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom
By Federica Rossi, Ainurul Rosli. 2015
194 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The issue of what indicators are most appropriate in order to measure the performance of universities in knowledge transfer (KT) activities remains relatively under-investigated. The main aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the limitations to the current measurements of university–industry KT performance, and propose some directions for improvement. We argue that university–industry KT can unfold in many ways and impact many stakeholders, and that, especially in highly differentiated university systems, choosing indicators focused on a narrow range of activities and impacts might limit the ability of universities to accurately represent their KT performance. Therefore, KT indicators should include a variety of activities and reflect a variety of impacts so as to allow comparability between different institutions and avoid the creation of undesirable behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, the authors discuss the case of the United Kingdom's Higher Education–Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey.
Subfields: Education, Management of Technology and Innovation, Political Science and International Relations
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e8e1613d3bcba16cfd2820885ba46657732a15b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
In Management of Technology and Innovation
In Political Science and International Relations
Citations in the corpus
- Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university's structural configuration on third mission performance (2019, background): “Third the HEBCI survey itself measures a limited range of KE activities (Rossi and Rosli, 2014), neglecting other outputs such as joint workshops and meetings which are informal and tacit in nature but nevertheless significant for firms' innovation (Howells et al.”