Hide
Раскрыть

Journal of the National Research University Higher School of Economics

About

News

Аrchive

Editorial Сouncil

Peer Reviewing

Publication Ethics

Contacts

Publication terms

Authors guidelines

Forthcoming articles

ISSN 1995-459X print
E-ISSN 2312-9972 online
ISSN 2500-2597 online English

Editor-in-chief
Leonid Gokhberg

   



Foresight and STI Governance, 2017, vol. 11, no 2. "Knowledge Triangle": universities in the innovation system

2017-07-03

The new, special issue of the Foresight and STI Governance journal (2017. vol. 11. no. 2) discusses various aspects of integrating universities’ educational, research, and innovation activities in line with the “Knowledge Triangle” model.

Experts from Russia, the UK, Austria, Sweden, Iran, Indonesia, and the OECD share their ideas and relevant research results.

In the introductory paper “The Role of Universities in the Knowledge TriangleNicholas Vonortas

broadly describes universities’ functions in the innovation system, and their interaction with other participants. Special accent is placed on classifying knowledge transfer channels linking the academic sector with industry. 

In recent years the “Knowledge Triangle” concept was turning into a popular innovation policy tool. In their paper “The Knowledge Triangle between Research, Education and Innovation – A Conceptual Discussion” Maximilian Unger and Wolfgang Polt analyse its mechanisms, roles of actors, relevant challenges and opportunities. The authors propose to view knowledge triangle as a framework integrating other, partially duplicating or supplementing each other  concepts such as “third mission”, “triple helix”, “entrepreneurial” or “socially oriented” university, etc. 

The paper by Mario Cervantes “Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Triangle” is devoted to S&T policy-related issues, best practices of increasing universities’ productivity and socio-economic importance as a key knowledge triangle component. The author analyses various approaches to promoting knowledge triangle in universities, and their relative merits. 

Open science throws a glove at conventional R&D cooperation models, which limit knowledge exchanges by factors motivating researchers to publish exclusively in high-ranking journals, and by intellectual property rights. Joanna Chataway, Sarah Parks, and Elta Smith in their paper “How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaborations?” highlight the growing interest in making science and knowledge exchanges more open. These processes are further advanced by insufficient research productivity, lack of trust to research results published in leading journals, and the state’s desire to provide free access to results of public-funded research. 

Natalia Shmatko and Galina Volkova explore motivation patterns of Russian researchers on the basis of the results of the international project “Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH)” and its Russian counterpart, “Monitoring survey of Highly Qualified R&D Personnel”. In the paper “Service or Devotion? Motivation Patterns of Russian Researchers” the authors analyse how firm or, on the other hand, volatile researchers’ incentives are during various periods of their lives and at three stages of the academic career. The main incentives are personal and professional development, creative and innovative work, and independence. 

Further advancing the thesis, reflected in other papers of the issue, that no universally accepted knowledge triangle model has yet emerged, Eugenia Perez-Vico, Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Emily Wise, and Mats Benner in their article “Knowledge Triangle Configurations at Three Swedish Universities” study specific organisational and political features of relevant strategies implemented by three Swedish universities. Despite the fact that knowledge triangle remains at the core of the national policy, practical aspects of this concept still remain insufficiently developed, while the responsibility for its application lies with the universities. The authors highlight various weaknesses of this approach, and conclude that an adequate supply of resources and competences would help to efficiently integrate basic functions of universities.

In the paper “The Effect of Talent Management Process on the Research Performance of Faculty Members with the Mediating Role of Organizational Justice” Farzaneh Eghbal, Reza Hoveida, Siadat Seyadat Seyedali, Hossein Samavatiyan, and Mokhammad-Khosseyn Yarmokhammadian assess, on the basis of the results of a special survey, how personal perception of talent management practices affects university faculty’s research productivity. They argue that perceived organisational justice plays only a limited mediating role, and therefore the quality of talent management directly affects both the component itself and the faculty’s research productivity.

The study “Relationships between Lecturer Performance, Organizational Culture, Leadership, and Achievement Motivation” measures the impact of the conventional culture – i.e.  striving for leadership and achievement – over university faculty’s overall performance. Noting direct correlation between the above factors, Yusdi Anra and Martinis Yamin conclude that improving the organisational culture, leadership, and achievement motivation would contribute to increasing lecturers’ productivity.

 

 

 
Rambler's Top100 rss