Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DOI 10.1007/s11024-010-9158-7
Taran Thune
Introduction
T. Thune (&)
Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU STEP),
Wergelandsveien 7, 0167 Oslo, Norway
e-mail: taran.thune@nifustep.no
123
464 T. Thune
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 465
123
466 T. Thune
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 467
several countries, new ways of organizing research and training of doctoral students
has become a pertinent higher education and research policy issue in recent years.
Doctoral level education is increasingly seen as part of collaborative arrangements
between firms, government and universities. According to Borell-Damian (2009),
there is not a single model of doctoral collaboration with industry. Approaches
include initiatives from large firms, initiatives from R&D intensive SMEs,
university-led initiatives, and structured public–private partnerships. In terms of
the latter, different governmental programs provide financial support for doctoral
students who work on firm R&D projects in collaboration with universities, such as
the Industrial PhD-programs in Norway and Denmark, the Industrial Research
Schools in Sweden, the Co-operative awards in science and engineering in the UK,
CIFRE in France, and several other national and international programs.
Such specialized programs enroll a limited number of PhD students. However,
researcher training is also a central part of other research policy instruments aiming
at strengthening the collaboration between industry and universities, such as
collaborative research centers or public research programs supporting collaborative
research. In Europe, an increasing policy focus in doctoral level training is on
increasing the relevance of doctoral level training for careers outside academia, the
focus here being more and more on graduate employability and transferable skills
(Borell-Damian 2009). The aims of such recent initiatives and programs are to
increase research carried out in industry, to educate researchers with insight into
industrial perspectives on R&D, and to make research an attractive career for people
who are ‘normally not interested’ in a research career. Overall, the aim is to educate
a new cadre of researchers who are not only prepared for a career in academia but
who posses ties to and competencies relevant for other sectors and professions as
well (European Commission 2003; Borell-Damian 2009).
However, several of the issues and challenges addressed in this paper are not only
of relevance to collaborative research carried out in triple helix frameworks.
Collaborative research is a key policy tool for supporting transdisciplinary research
directed towards complex research problems or ‘‘grand challenges,’’ such as energy
and environmental issues or health related research. Increasing use of research
funding mechanisms that focus on thematic priorities and international collaboration
also led to more collaborative organization of research (Porac et al. 2004). As a
response, an emerging ‘‘team science’’ literature has developed, particularly in the
US, to provide knowledge about ways of organizing multidisciplinary teams of
scientists (Hall et al. 2008; Stokols et al. 2008). According to Vastag (2008),
graduate students involved in collaborative research often fulfill central roles as
bridges between disciplines and in many cases junior scientists and graduate
students are ‘‘driving a lot of interdisciplinary collaboration’’ (p. 422). Conse-
quently, one key issue addressed within this literature is the need to train researchers
with relevant transdisciplinary competencies and ‘‘team science’’ skills and attitudes
(Nash 2008). The knowledge about researcher training being carried out in
collaborative research contexts is nascent, and present prescriptive models are quite
idealistic and based on limited empirical knowledge (Nash 2008). With this in mind,
this study provides empirical illustrations of how collaborative research training is
experienced by the involved doctoral students, and offers some insight into
123
468 T. Thune
antecedent and process factors that are central in shaping PhD students collaboration
experience.
Researcher training and doctoral education changes in several ways as a result of
increasing interfacing between universities, industry and government. Recent policy
also has supported a redefinition of researcher training where broader skills and
relevance for careers outside the university sector is seen as central. But one could
also argue that changes in mode of researcher training is a necessary precondition
for the development of the triple helix—because the effective working and
expansion of triple helix networks at the micro level require heterogeneous
networks and people who are skilled in communication across organizational and
intellectual boundaries. Thus, for several reasons it is pertinent to investigate current
changes in doctoral education and researcher training. Particularly further knowl-
edge about university–industry collaborations as a context for researcher training is
required. Relevant research questions include questions about the organization and
coordination of collaborative PhD training as well as the content and skills
emphasized during the doctoral education period. Other relevant questions are on
potential changes in research focus and impact on researcher productivity and
implications for professional identity, career ambitions and career patterns.
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 469
123
470 T. Thune
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 471
123
472 T. Thune
Empirical Data
The PhD students interviewed in this study collaborate with a number of Norwegian
and international companies. Most of the companies are large and R&D intensive or
high-tech SMEs. The firms invest extensively in research and development
activities, and many of them have long traditions of collaborating with universities
and other public research institutes. Almost all of the informants say that the
collaborative research projects they are currently involved in emanated from a
previous relationship between the university and the company, and the professor and
firm contact person often have personal relations or have been a part of the same
networks for many years. It is important to have in mind that there are strong ties
between research environments in universities and Norwegian companies that invest
in R&D and employ people with scientific qualifications (Thune 2006). Only three
of the informants describe the collaboration they are involved in as a completely
new relationship between the university and the company in question. In all three
cases, either the firm or the researcher is not of Norwegian nationality. Personal
connections, close networks and long term relationships between a firm and research
groups or individual researchers in universities are central explanations of how
collaborative research projects develop in the Norwegian context (as it probably is
in most countries). When asked how the project they currently are involved in
started, typical responses include:
I think that there was someone there (in the company) who knew my
supervisor. There was someone at the company that had worked here before
and they had collaborated previously as well (PhD student in chemistry).
They (the company) have always been very interested in research. That’s been
a part of their culture to collaborate with research environments. One of my
supervisors had collaborated with them for a long period of time. So I guess it
is due to the relationship she had developed with them (PhD student in
software engineering).
12 of the respondents are involved in research projects that are fully funded by
the companies or by a consortium of companies, whereas 13 are involved in
collaborative research projects that are partly funded by public research grants and
partly by private companies. All of the publicly funded research projects were
funded through programs targeting collaborative research, and where the firms
either contribute part of the funding or by in-kind contributions (research facilities,
time, or other resources). Of the respondents who were fully funded by companies,
two were funded by a consortium of firms and 10 were fully funded by one
company.
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 473
The large majority of the informants had no prior engagements with the firms
they collaborated with before starting on the PhD. Only three of them had
established relationships through prior employment in the firm. In several of the
cases, the PhD student applied for a PhD position without prior contact to the
university department - this includes all the non-Norwegian PhD students. In only
one case, the PhD student was personally instrumental in forming the research
collaboration between the firm and the university.
The interviews indicated that the reasons for entering collaborative research
projects differed quite a lot between the students and also between the different
fields of research. In particular, the PhD students in ICT had made a conscious
choice of becoming involved in a collaborative research project. Often these
students, at least when they initially started the PhD, aimed for a future career in
industry. The following quote illustrates the attitudes of students who made strategic
choices in collaborating with industry:
I was planning for a career as an IT consultant. But then I got an offer, or I got
asked to apply for a PhD position that was tied to industry. First I thought no,
then maybe yes, because it was industrial. Then I thought that I will get the
best of both worlds. I will not be bogged down in theory but I would be part of
the firm. I would not exactly get experience from consultancy work, but I
would get industrial experience at the same time as I would get an academic
diploma (PhD student in software engineering).
The PhD students, who intentionally chose a PhD position in collaborative
research, also tended to expect that collaborating with industry during the PhD
would be instrumental for achieving their career goals, as illustrated by the
following quote:
I wanted close ties to industry. I want to work with research and development
when I graduate, which they do in the ‘‘Firm’’, and I thought it would be a
good idea to have some contacts there (PhD student in ICT).
In most (but not all) cases, these students had a career in industry in mind. The
interviewed PhD students, particularly within chemical engineering and ICT, work
in academic fields where industrial funding and collaborative research is very
common. They work in research fields where industry is present in ‘‘everything we
do,’’ as expressed by one of the informants. For them, interacting with industry
during the doctoral degree period was routine practice and often considered a sign of
quality and relevance of research. In these areas, interacting with industry during the
PhD is equally important for students who are aiming for a career in industry or in
academia. According to these informants, interacting with industry gives the PhD
students competencies, access to data and research material that are seen as vital for
future research careers both inside and outside the university.
[…] in our field, there is a lot of interest in big case studies, these kind of
empirical studies. So it can help that I can show that I have done this before;
that I have this experience. For post-doc positions and even permanent
positions in the university, they [the university] hire people who have the
123
474 T. Thune
ability to make contacts with industry and who can write proposals (PhD
student in ICT).
When entering collaborative research projects, some of the students were mainly
motivated by access to funding for a PhD project, rather than collaborating with
industry as such. This is particularly common for PhD students in business
economics and non-Norwegian PhD students in all fields of science, as expressed by
the following: ‘‘It was interesting but it was not exactly my concern. Not like if it
isn’t, then I won’t go for that. But it is always good to have real cases’’ (PhD student
in software engineering).
These PhD students were less clear about their career expectations and were
mainly motivated by the research problem rather than any particular career choice.
As one of them expressed it: ‘‘It depends on what kind of job opportunities I will
get. I might just go to academia not to industry’’ (PhD student in chemical
engineering). This could imply that future career opportunities, which differ by
academic fields, also shape the experiences PhD students have when being involved
in collaborative research. In areas where there is a variety of career opportunities,
the PhD students have more positive experiences in collaborating during the PhD
period than in research fields with fewer possible career tracks.
Looking across the 25 PhD students’ stories of how collaborative research projects
develop and unfold, it seems clear that the collaboration processes and the role PhD
students occupy in research collaborations were quite similar, regardless of type of
projects, type of industrial partner and scientific fields. The mode of interaction
between the firm and the PhD student seemed to develop in two quite distinct
phases—the project development phase and the project implementation phase. It
also seems that these phases are distinct and dissimilar and are experienced
differently by the students.
Half of the respondents work on PhD projects that are part of larger collaborative
research projects, often partly funded by public research grants. There seems to be
less freedom for designing research projects for PhD students who participate in
larger collaborative research projects, but this also varies between academic fields.
Students in business economics, who carry out more individually oriented research,
have more freedom to design their own research projects than students in other
areas, who often work in research groups and where research also depends on access
to particular equipment or materials.
Amongst the students interviewed in this study, the freedom for developing and
designing research projects is usually larger when the students partake in research
projects that are fully funded by companies, which is the situation for half of the
respondents. The reason for this is that the research projects are not designed as part
of an application for a research grant. In cases where the firm fully funds PhD
students’ research, it seems that the agreement between the firm and the university
allows for quite a lot of flexibility in designing individual research projects and the
research design is a matter of dialogue and negotiation between the firm, the PhD
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 475
student and the academic supervisor. The following quote provides an illustration of
this negotiation process:
My project developed through a discussion with the Firm, but had the Firm’s
concrete need for knowledge as a starting point. The whole project developed
out of these discussions, and based on these discussions, we came up with
suggestions for research projects, from which the Firm could choose (PhD
student in business economics).
The complexity and size of the research projects seem to be variables that have
an impact on the development of the research projects, particularly with respect to
the freedom the students have in pursuing their own research interests. The nature of
the research projects might matter more than the type of funding and involvement of
industrial partners.
Regardless of how the project was designed, the initial contact and processes
connected to developing the project seemed to require a high degree of interaction
between the firm and the PhD student. The firms seemed to be particularly active in
the interaction with the students in the initial phase of the collaboration. First and
foremost, the students needed to acquire knowledge about the firm and the
technology they will work on. The firms provided the PhD students with office
space at the firm or access to company technology and other resources, and the
students interacted regularly with the firm. In this phase, the students often
experienced quite a lot of enthusiasm from the firms and were asked to present the
research project and its results frequently. After this initial stage, when the project
was designed and implemented, the interaction changed and became less intense.
The students carried out the research, mostly based at the university, and reported to
the firm at regular intervals. In this stage, interaction took the form of regular status
meetings, where all involved parties meet, results are presented and the next steps of
the project are discussed. One of the PhD students reflected on this process in the
following manner:
In the beginning it was a strong feeling of collaboration and we did a lot
together. We even sat together and did programming. But after a while, it was
only me who did things and they didn’t do anything. I just showed them what I
had done. And they came and had a look. So, it has really changed (PhD
student in software engineering).
This stage is infrequently followed by a phase with more intense collaboration if
the research project leads to results that are commercially interesting for the firm.
However, for the PhD students, what they experience as lack of interest and lack of
contact with the firms is a far more commonly experienced problem than a firm
showing too much interest or attempting to steer the PhD students and posing
restrictions on publishing due to IPR protection. Rather, all of the 25 PhD students
interviewed in this study experienced limited contact with the firms during the PhD
123
476 T. Thune
period. However, the PhD students’ reaction to this situation seemed also to depend
on their initial motivation to enter collaborative research.
One of the main reasons why the PhD students experience lack of interest from
the firms is that they often lose the contact person they initially had in the firm along
the way. And even though several of the PhD students partake in larger
collaborative research projects, at the operational level, connections seem to be
little institutionalized and highly dependent on key individuals. The firm’s contact
person represents a bridge between the firm and the research environment and
usually has experience in both sectors. The contact person is vital because he can
assist the PhD student in translating and reconciling different demands and areas of
competence needed for carrying out the collaborative research projects. In the cases
described here, the firm’s contact person seldom has a formal supervisor position, as
only one of the informants reported having a formal industry supervisor. However,
informally, this person is amongst the most important advisors for the PhD students,
as illustrated by the following quote:
He was very interested and very, very competent. I am not very skilled
technically, so I felt that it was assuring to have him around, because he
always knew how to solve things practically. It felt safe and he was a really
good champion. I was not afraid of anything, because he was by my side. I
knew what we were going to do and he knew how we could do it. It worked
very well, so it was a shame that he was taken off the project (PhD student in
software engineering).
The contact person also represents the point of entry to the firm. Since he usually
has been part of establishing the project, in the students’ perspective, this person
represents the firm’s vested commitment and engagement in the research project and
the PhD student. The relationship between the PhD student and firm seems to be
vulnerable and dependent upon key contact persons, as are most collaborative
partnerships between firms and universities (Thune 2006). However, for different
reasons, the initial contact person often leaves the project after some time. Half of
the PhD students interviewed report some form of breakdown in communication
due to losing the initial contact person. For the PhD students, the nature of the
collaboration changes after that, as seen in the quote above. In some instances, the
contact disappears altogether, as illustrated by the following quote:
After [Firm] reorganized, my contact person was moved to another part of the
organization, and we got a new person who managed the project. She had
different interests and we have less or really no contact with her at all (PhD
student in software engineering).
The other key person that shapes the PhD students’ collaboration experience is
the academic supervisor. All of the interviewed PhD students claim that their
academic supervisor has extensive experience in collaborative research. According
to the informants, there are several reasons why this is important. First, the
supervisors generated the PhD research projects through their networks and prior
engagements with firms, so in most cases, the research projects would not have been
initiated had it not been for the supervisors’ contacts and experience. Second, the
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 477
123
478 T. Thune
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 479
123
480 T. Thune
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 481
to firm size and importance of the scientific knowledge for the firm. This means that
there is a complex relationship between key independent variables. Overall, the
relationship between key antecedent and process variables needs to be more fully
understood. A better understanding will also improve knowledge on the effects of
researcher training in collaborative contexts. Studies on study and career outcomes
should be further explored in further research on collaborative researcher training
for future ‘‘triple helix workers.’’
Acknowledgments The paper reports on a research project funded by the Norwegian Ministry of
Science and Education. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also go to the two anonymous
reviewers who provided insightful comments on the paper. A preliminary version of the paper was
presented at the Triple Helix 7 conference in Glasgow in June 2009. Any mistakes or omissions remain
the sole responsibility of the author.
References
Auriol, Laudeline. 2007. Labour market characteristics and international mobility of doctorate holders:
Results for seven countries, STI Working paper 2007/2. Paris: OECD.
Barnes, Tina, Ian Pashby, and Anne Gibbons. 2002. Effective university–industry interaction: A
multicase evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal 20(3):
272–285.
Behrens, Teresa R., and Denis O. Gray. 2001. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact
of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome.
Research Policy 30: 179–199.
Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabell M.B. Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between
universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37: 1837–1853.
Boardman, P. Craig, and Branco L. Ponomariov. 2009. University researchers working with private
companies. Technovation 29: 142–153.
Borell-Damian, Lidia. 2009. Collaborative doctoral education. University–Industry partnerships for
enhancing knowledge exchange. European University Association.
Bozeman, Barry, and Elisabeth Corley. 2004. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for
scientific and human capital. Research Policy 36: 694–707.
Butcher, Juliette, and Paul Jeffrey, 2007. A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions of
successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects. Research Policy 36: 1239–1250.
Cohen, Wesley M., Richard Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2003. Links and impacts: the influence of public
research on industrial R&D. In Aldo Geuna, Ammon Salter, and W. Edward Steinmueller. Science
and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Cruz-Castro, Laura, and Luis Sanz-Menedez. 2005. The employment of PhDs in firms: Trajectories,
mobility and innovation. Research Evaluation 14(1): 57–69.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management
Review 14(4): 532–550.
Enders, Jürgen, and Egbert de Weert. 2004. Science, training and career: Changing modes of knowledge
production and labour markets. Higher Education Policy 17: 135–152.
Enders, Jürgen. 2005. Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transfor-
mation of academic work. Higher Education 46: 119–133.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 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.
Etzkowitz, Henry, et al. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of
ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.
European Commission. 2003. Researchers in the European Research Area: One profession, multiple
careers. Brussels: European Commission.
123
482 T. Thune
Forsknings-og Innovasjonsstyrelsen. 2007. The industrial PhD. An effective tool for innovation and
knowledge sharing. Denmark: Copenhagen.
Gemme, Brigitte, & Yves Gringas. 2004. Training a new breed of researchers, inside and outside
universities. Working paper presented at colloquium on research and higher education policy, Paris:
UNESCO.
Gluck, Michael E., David, Blumenthal, and A. Michael Soto. 1987. University–industry relationships in
the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy 16: 327–336.
Graversen, Ebbe K, and Kenny Friis-Jensen. 2001. Job mobility implications of the HRST definition:
Illustrated with empirical numbers from register data. Innovative people: mobility of skilled
personnel in national innovation systems. Paris: OECD rapport.
Hall, Kara L., et al. 2008. Moving the science of team science forward. Collaboration and creativity.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: S243–S249.
Harman, Kay. 2004. Producing ‘industry-ready’ doctorates: Australia Cooperative Research Centre
approaches to doctoral education. Studies in Continuing Education 26(3): 387–404.
Harman, Kay. 2008. Challenging traditional research training culture: Industry-oriented doctoral
programs in Australian Cooperative Research Centers. In Cultural perspectives on higher education,
eds. J. Valimaa and O.-H. Ylijoki. Germany: Springer.
King, Nigel. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative
methods in organizational research, eds. Catherine Cassel, and Gillian Symon. London: Sage.
Kyvik, Svein, and Terje Olsen. 2007. Doktorgradsutdanning og karrieremuligheter. NIFU STEP Report
Nr. 35/2007. Oslo: NIFU STEP.
Lam, Alice. 2000. Skills formation in the knowledge-based economy: Mode 2 knowledge and the extended
internal labour market. Paper presented at Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics June
15–17, 2000, Denmark.
Louis, Karen Seashore, et al. 2007. Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and
organizational climate. The Journal of Higher Education 78(3): 311–336.
Mangematin, Vincent, and Stephane Robin. 2003. The two faces of PhD students: Management of early
careers of French PhDs in life sciences. Science and Public Policy 30(6): 405–414.
Mangematin, Vincent. 2000. PhD job market: professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD.
Research Policy 29: 741–756.
Metcalfe, Janet. 2007. The changing nature of doctoral programmes. Presentation for European
University Association, DOC-CAREERS project Workshop on Transferable Skills, Brussels.
Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder, and Ulrich Schmoch. 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry
interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27: 835–851.
Mora-Valentin, Eva M., Angeles Montoro-Sanches, and Luis A. Guerras-Martin. 2004. Determining
factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations.
Research Policy 33: 17–40.
Nash, Justin M. 2008. Transdisciplinary Training. Key components and prerequisites for success.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 133–140.
Porac, Joseph F., et al. 2004. Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication
patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams.
Research Policy 33: 661–678.
Ranga, Liana Marina, Joost Miedema, and Rene Jorna. 2008. Enhancing the innovative capacity of small
firms through triple helix interactions: Challenges and opportunities. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 20(6): 697–716.
Rappert, Brian, Andrew Webster, and David Charles. 1999. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:
academic–industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28: 873–890.
Salminen-Karlsson, Minna, and Lillemor Wallgren. 2008. ‘‘The interaction of academic and industrial
supervisors in graduate research. An investigation of industrial research schools’’ Higher Education
56: 77–93.
Schartinger, Doris, et al. 2002. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria:
sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy 31: 303–328.
Schofield, Janet W. 2002. Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In The qualitative
researcher’s companion, eds. A. Michael Huberman and Matthew B. Miles. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Slaughter, Sheila, et al. 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.
Stokols, Daniel, et al. 2008. The ecology of team science. Understanding contextual influences on
transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 96–115.
123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 483
Thune, Taran. 2006. Formation of research collaboration between universities and firms. Series of
dissertations, No 8/2006 Oslo: The Norwegian School of Management.
Thune, Taran. 2009. Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the literature.
Higher Education 58: 637–651.
Vastag, Brian. 2008. Assembly work. Nature 435: 422–423.
Wallgren, Lillemor, and Lars Owe Dahlgren. 2005. Doctoral education as social practice for knowledge
development. Conditions and demands encountered by industry PhD students. Industry and Higher
Education 19: 433–443.
Wallgren, Lillemor, and Lars Owe Dahlgren. 2007. Industrial doctoral students as brokers between
industry and academia. Industry and Higher Education 21: 195–210.
123