1. 15 March 2016 Putting university-industry interaction into perspective: a view from inside South African universities Glenda Kruss IndiaLICS Training Programme Thiruvananthapuram, India Social science that makes a difference

2. The problem Firms and economic policy makers need an enhanced understanding of what universities value and how they interact, to increase knowledge and technology flows Literature on UILs focus: university-related incentives and barriers, in context of Europe and USA (Perkman et al 2013) But immature systems of innovation in late developing countries, such as SA? Face dual challenge of linking to global science and addressing local social and economic problems Local resource conditions, legacy of colonisation, racial segregation, inequality, poverty Universities expected to play multiple roles, combine and balance in diverse ways

3. Social science that makes a difference The research aim => Situate university-industry linkages within the total pattern of interaction with external actors, in diverse types of university across a national system of innovation Contribute to literature: Extend empirical coverage beyond US /Europe Demonstrate why it is important to take the heterogeneity of universities and HE systems in different country contexts into account, to identify barriers and incentives

4. Social science that makes a difference The research framework Cohen, Nelson and Walsh (2002): patterns of interaction - firm survey of type of relationship, channels of interaction, benefits and constraints Albuquerque et al (2015): patterns in 12 middle and low income countries in the global South – firm and university survey Kruss et al (2012): patterns with full range of partners (government, informal sector, community, civil society); research and innovation, teaching and outreach roles Drivers of interaction: financial and intellectual Shape forms of interaction: service, traditional, network and commercialisation Universities as reputationally controlled work organisations in competitive higher education systems (Whitley 2003)

5. Social science that makes a difference Research questions What is intensity of reputational competition in immature NIS in SA? What is frequency and forms of academic engagement in different types of university(nature of partners, type of relationship, outcomes)? Frequency and forms of interaction with FIRMS? How do patterns reflect balance between financial and intellectual imperatives? What are the policy insights for understanding incentives and barriers to interaction with firms?

6. Social science that makes a difference Design and methodology Case studies of 5 universities of distinct types: 2 Research, 1 Technology, 1 Comprehensive, 1 Rural Survey of individual academics’ interactive practices: Telephonic interview using CATI tool, training for callers 62% average response rate 2 159 responses Sample distribution matched gender, race, academic rank trends of each university population Documentary and interview qualitative data on institutional history, mission, policy and culture, to interpret patterns Engagement with universities: input to design, data analysis, workshops with strategic insights

7. Social science that makes a difference Data analysis challenge Likert scale: 1(not at all) - 4 (on a wide scale) Multiple items per dimension Analysis of total sample: established that different patterns at each type of university statistically significant Analysis per individual university, in greater depth  Weighted Average Index to rank items  Principal Component Analysis  Mean of each set of variables within a component plotted to spider graphs  Significance of association tested

8. Social science that makes a difference A segmented hierarchical national system ResU2ResU1CompUUoTRuralU TOTAL / AVERAGE Number of engaged academics 412563272344150 On an isolated scale only (2) 38%34%38%17%40%33% Moderate scale (3 and 4) with a single partner 33%28%23%21%24%26% Moderate scale (3 and 4) with more than two partners (networked) 23%14%18%37%22%23% No Engagement 7%24%21%26%14%19% Number of academics in sample 442738343462174

9. Social science that makes a difference Partners

10. Social science that makes a difference Frequent interaction with firms only Moderate scale (3 and 4)ResU2ResU1CompUUoTRuralU TOTAL / AVERAGE LNFs % of all academics252826311827 LNFs % of engaged academics263733412133 SMMEs % of all academics192026322124 SMMEs % of engaged academics202633442429 MNCs % of all academics1617 141216 MNCs % of engaged academics172321191420

11. Social science that makes a difference Types of relationship

12. Social science that makes a difference Types of relationship SMMEs / MNCs

13. Social science that makes a difference Outcomes of frequent interaction with firms ResU2ResU1CompUUoTRuralUAverage LNFs Academic benefits808684899486 Community and social development2036 576940 Productivity and employment generation 242843595339 SMMEs Academic benefits838683878385 Community and social development243934565041 Productivity and employment generation 253441573941 MNCs Academic benefits839181899087 Community and social development193835606239 Productivity and employment generation 213846636742

14. Social science that makes a difference Value of analysing frequency and forms of interaction in university types? Situate firm interaction within total pattern of interactive activity: Strong awareness of importance of interaction Scale of active and networked interaction low Academic partners, teaching oriented types of relationship and academic benefits most frequent Firm partners, research and innovation oriented relationships and productivity benefits not frequent => Intellectual imperatives tend to drive academics, traditional forms of interaction prevail, and academic engagement oriented to community and social development is more significant than entrepreneurial interaction

15. Social science that makes a difference Patterns differ by type of university Incentives and barriers strongly related to differentiated nature Disaggregation and investigation of heterogeneity and diversity at the micro-level can reveal important evidence of emergent activity that can be nurtured If policy makers understand the wider range of forms of academic engagement in addition to main entrepreneurial forms, initiatives can be created to build academic capabilities to link to knowledge users in firms more effectively and on a wider scale AND to link to knowledge users in communities / informal sector!

16. Social science that makes a difference Strategies informed by heterogeneity of imperatives shaping interaction Segmented and hierarchical HE system barrier to ALL forms of interaction => enhance knowledge flows Range of interventions required: UoT – potential ‘spots of interaction’ => interventions to support a larger scale of enterpreneurial activity Res2 – convince academics of potential value, alongside financial incentives CompU – build capabilities and scientific reputations to extend/nurture spots of interaction RuralU-build capabilities to link informal sector actors into formal value chains => View from inside HE critical to identify barriers and incentives