This research looked at the human resource connections between universities and industries. It examined how closer ties between the two sectors have transformed the nature of work roles and professional orientations of university scientists. In particular, it looked at a growing category of academic scientists referred to as ‘linked scientists’. These people engage in the practices of both science and business, and develop knowledge networks and career patterns that straddle the two sectors.
University-industry links and the collaboration of scientists across the two sectors have long been shown to be problematic. This is particularly because of the difficulty of reconciling the divergent work norms and career interests of scientists with the needs of the two different kinds of institutions. The study aimed to explore how the development of ‘linked scientists’ might offer a potential solution. It explored the motivations and incentives behind scientists’ engagement in industrial links and how they reconcile the career risks inherent in hybrid work roles. It examined the entrepreneurial dynamics as well as the tensions inherent in the overlapping space that support joint knowledge production between the two sectors.
The research sample consisted of academic scientists based at five universities. It covered biosciences, medicine, computer science, electrical engineering, mathematics and physics. Data were collected by 63 in-depth individual interviews, analysis of 734 on-line questionnaire surveys received (the survey was sent to 3,000 scientists, so this is a response rate of 25%), and case studies of research centres.
The analysis identified a great deal of variation in scientists’ attitudes towards closer university industry ties. The most complex responses were found among those in hybrid positions who combined the characteristics of both the ‘old school ivory tower traditionalists’ and the ‘new school scientist entrepreneurs’. They comprised a significant proportion (43%) of the responses. These people may experience work role tensions but, at the same time, provide crucial bridges between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’. Hybrids occupy an intermediate and somewhat ambiguous position between the two polar types at the opposite ends of the spectrum. This provides a ‘free space’ for experimenting with new practices without undermining the established academic norms. Indeed, the study shows that many academic scientists have embarked on new, entrepreneurial roles within a relatively stable value framework and academic identity.
The engagement of the linked scientists in boundary-crossing knowledge networks provides a powerful mechanism for bridging the apparently contradictory cognitive frameworks and institutional logics of the two sectors. Many of them have been able to use their scientific reputation and expertise to negotiate the blurred boundaries between science and business, and used ‘old’ academic norms to legitimate ‘new’ work practices. For example, the academics directly engaged in commercial and company formation activities stressed the scientific and public good benefits of their ventures such as testing new ideas, generating research resources, and social obligations.
The study shows that it is primarily career-related motives that drive academic scientists to build links with industry. The majority of respondents engaged in industrial ventures to obtain funding and other knowledge resources to support and expand their scientific research. Many of them would engage in industrial ventures only if they perceived a connection between these activities and scientific career rewards. Thus academics’ perception of career and research-related rewards appears to be a critical factor in inducing entrepreneurial behaviour.
In contrast to the growing concern by some about the potential negative impact of closer business ties on academic research and the conflicts of commitment that might occur, this study shows that scientists generally perceived a positive impact of industrial links on their research and careers/reputation. However, there was some evidence that scientists at smaller and less experienced institutions, and junior academics were more likely to experience negative impact because of their limited bargaining power. The analysis also shows that increased work load was a problem experienced by many, especially among those who engaged in commercial activities many of whom worked excessively long hours.
The growing intensity of university-industry ties is increasingly dependent on a growing army of non-permanent researchers: the post-docs and PhD students. Their short-tenure provides considerable flexibility in staffing the joint projects and research centres. For some of these young researchers, engagement in industrial projects can create opportunities for developing new competences and alternative career options. However, the difficulties in reconciling the different reward systems of the two sectors and the intermittent nature of industrial projects mean that the career paths for many could be fragile and uncertain. Overall, young scientists are more likely to benefit from collaborative research projects than direct engagement in commercialisation activities.
Collaborative research centres that support joint projects while at the same time ensuring that academic scientists are firmly integrated into the academic communities can better maintain a balance between Mode 1 (discipline-based) and Mode 2 (problem-based) knowledge production, and foster the development of linked scientists.
There is some evidence of growing conflict between the academics and their universities over ownership of IP or share of rewards. Some criticisms were directed towards the technology transfer offices which were seen as creating a bureaucratic layer that could stifle bottom-up science-business networking activities.
An important message for policy makers is that institutions cannot easily engineer entrepreneurship. The university is a complex organisation with different departments and disciplines characterised by diverse attitudes and research orientations. Fostering entrepreneurship from the top may be less effective than working at the local, departmental level. More crucially, the research suggests that policies focusing on human capital formation and appropriate design of career reward structures might be a more effective means of promoting continuous knowledge flows between science and business than the conventional preoccupation with technology transfer and commercialisation.
This study has contributed to our understanding of how careers underpin knowledge networks, and the changing nature of scientific work in a knowledge production system characterised by complex interactions between academic science and business.