Understanding Quadruple Helix Relationships of University Technology Commercialisation: A Micro Level Approach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Given recent demands for more co-creational university technology commercialisation processes involving industry and end users, this paper adopts a micro-level approach to explore the challenges faced by universities when managing Quadruple Helix stakeholders within technology commercialisation processes. To explore this research question,a qualitative research methodology which relies upon comparative case analysis was adopted to explore the technology commercialisation process in two universities within a UK region. The findings revealed that university type impacts Quadruple Helix stakeholder salience and engagement and consequently university technology commercialisation activities and processes. This is important as recent European regional policy fails to account for contextual influences when promoting QuadrupleHelix stakeholder relationships in co-creational university technology commercialisation.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1058-1073
JournalStudies in Higher Education
Volume43
Issue number6
Early online date17 Aug 2016
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 17 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

commercialization
micro level
university
stakeholder
regional policy
qualitative research
industry
methodology

Keywords

  • Quadruple Helix
  • Stakeholder theory
  • multiple case analysis
  • university-industry collaboration
  • university entrepreneurship
  • university technology commercialisation

Cite this

@article{f3454c58abb54e1cbffa7aee3132a6c3,
title = "Understanding Quadruple Helix Relationships of University Technology Commercialisation: A Micro Level Approach",
abstract = "Given recent demands for more co-creational university technology commercialisation processes involving industry and end users, this paper adopts a micro-level approach to explore the challenges faced by universities when managing Quadruple Helix stakeholders within technology commercialisation processes. To explore this research question,a qualitative research methodology which relies upon comparative case analysis was adopted to explore the technology commercialisation process in two universities within a UK region. The findings revealed that university type impacts Quadruple Helix stakeholder salience and engagement and consequently university technology commercialisation activities and processes. This is important as recent European regional policy fails to account for contextual influences when promoting QuadrupleHelix stakeholder relationships in co-creational university technology commercialisation.",
keywords = "Quadruple Helix, Stakeholder theory, multiple case analysis, university-industry collaboration, university entrepreneurship, university technology commercialisation",
author = "Maura McAdam and Kristel Miller and Rodney McAdam",
note = "Reference text: Ambos, T. C., K. Makela, J. Birkinshaw, and P. D’este. 2008. “When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions.” Journal of Management Studies 45: 1424–1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008. 00804.x. Arnkil, R., A. J{\"a}rvensivu, P. Koski, and T. Piirainen. 2010. Exploring Quadruple Helix – Outlining User-Oriented Innovation Models. University of Tampere, Institute for Social Research, Work Research Centre. Asheim, B. T., and L. Coenen. 2005. “Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters.” Research Policy 34 (8): 1173–90. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013. Bastalich, W. 2010. “Knowledge Economy and Research Innovation.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (7): 845–57. doi:10. 1080/03075070903406533. Bjerregaard, T. 2009. “University-industry Collaboration Strategies: A Micro Level Perspective.” European Journal of Innovation Management 12 (2): 161–176. doi:10.1108/14601060910953951. Carayannis, E. G., and D. F. J. Campbell. 2009. ““Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem.” International Journal of Technology Management 46 (3/4): 201–34. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374. Carayannis, E. G., and R. Rakhmatullin. 2014. “The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5 (2): 212–39. doi:10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8. De Silva, M. 2015. “Academic Entrepreneurship and Traditional Academic Duties: Synergy or Rilvary?” Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1029901. 14 K. MILLER ET AL. Dooley, L., and D. Kirk, 2007. “University-industry Collaboration: Grafting the Entrepreneurial Paradigm onto Academic Structures.” European Journal of Innovation Management 10 (3): 316–332. doi:10.1108/14601060710776734 Foster, D., and J. Jonker. 2005. “Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement.” Corporate Governance 5 (5): 51– 57. doi:10.1108/14720700510630059. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston. Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 191–205. doi:10.5465/AMR. 1999.1893928. Gephart, R. P. 1986. “Deconstructing the Defence for Quantification in Social Science: A Content Analysis of Journal Articles on the Parametric Strategy.” Qualitative Sociology 9 (2): 126–44. doi:10.1007/BF01314412. Gibb, A. 2010. Towards the Entrepreneurial University. Coventry: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. Gibson, C. B., and J. Birkenshaw. 2004. “The antecedents, Consequences and Mediating Role of Organisational Ambidexterity.” Academy of Management Journal 47 (2): 209–226. doi:10.2307/20159573 Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Greenwood, M. 2007. “Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 74 (4): 315–27. doi:10-1007/s10551-007-9509-y. Ivanova, I. 2014. “Quadruple Helix Systems and Symmetry: A Step Towards Helix Innovation System Classification.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5 (2): 357–69. doi:10-1007/s13132-014-0201-z. Labelle, F., and K. G. Aka. 2012. “Le processus d’innovation durable en contexte PME: Les effets d’un syst{\`e}me g{\'e}n{\'e}rant des retomb{\'e}es positives.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 25 (4): 479–98. doi:10.1080/08276331.2012. 10593585. sLawler, C. 2011. “The Capitalisation of Knowledge: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government.” Studies in Higher Education 36 (6): 746–47. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.594602. Leydesdorff, L. 2011. “The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35. doi:10-1007/s13132-011-0049-4. Locke, K., and K. Golden-Biddle. 1997. “Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organisational Studies.” Academy of Management Journal 40 (5): 1023–62. doi:10.2307/ 256926. MacGregor, S. P., P. Marques-Gou, and A. Simon-Villar. 2010. “Gauging Readiness for the Quadruple Helix: A Study of 16 European Organisations.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 1 (3): 173–90. doi:10.1007/s13132-010-0012-9. Markman, G. D., D. S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2008. “Research and Technology Commercialization.” Journal of Management Studies 45: 1401–1423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x. Mate-Sanchez-Val, M., and R. Harris. 2014. “Differential Empirical Innovation Factors for Spain and the UK.” Research Policy 43 (2): 451–63. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.013. McAdam, R., W. Keogh, B. Galbraith, and D. Laurie. 2005. “Defining and Improving Technology Transfer Business and Management Processes in University Innovation Centres.” Technovation 25 (12): 1418–29. doi:10.1016/j. technovation.2004.08.002. McAdam, M., R. McAdam, R. B. Galbraith, B., and K. Miller. 2010. “An Exploratory Study of Principal Investigator Roles in UK University Proof-of-Concept Processes: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective.” R&D Management 40 (5): 455–73. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00619.x. McAdam, R., K. Miller, M. McAdam, and S. Teague. 2012. “The Development of University Technology Transfer Stakeholder Relationships at a Regional Level: Lessons for the Future.” Technovation 32 (1): 57–67. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011. 08.001. McKeever, E., A. Anderson, and S. Jack. 2014. “Social Embeddedness in Entrepreneurship Research: The Importance of Context and Community.” In Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, edited by E. Chell, and M. Karatas-Ozkan, 222–235. London: Edward Elgar. Mian, S. 2011. Science and Technology Based Regional Entrepreneurship: Global Experience in Policy and Program Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, K., M. McAdam, and R. McAdam. 2014. “The Changing University Business Model: A Stakeholder Perspective.” R&D Management 44 (3): 265–87. doi:10.1111/radm.12064. Miller, K., R. McAdam, S. Moffett, A. Alexander, and P. Puthusserry. 2016. Knowledge Transfer in University Quadruple Helix Ecosystems: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective. R&D Management, 46: 383–399. doi:10.1111/radm.12182. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” The Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853–86. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997. 9711022105. Morsing, M., and M. Schultz. 2006. “Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, Response and Involvement Strategies.” Business Ethics: A European Review 15 (4): 323–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x. Muscio, A., and A. Pozzali. 2013. “The Effect of Cultural Distance in University-industry Collaborations. Some evidence from Italian universities.” Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (4): 486–508. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9262-y. Muscio, A., and G. Vallanti, 2014. “Perceived Obstacles to University-industry Collaboration: Results from a Qualitative Survey of Italian Academic Departments.” Industry and Innovation 21 (5): 410–429. doi:10.1080/13662716.2014. 969935. Nooteboom, B., W. B. Havebeck, G. Duysters, V. Gisling, and A. van den Oord. 2007. “Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity.” Research Policy 36 (7): 1016–1034. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003. Neville, B.A., S.J. Bell, and G. J. Whitwell. 2011. “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool.” Journal of Business Ethics 102 (3): 357–78. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9. Okamuro, H., and J. Nishimura. 2013. “Impact of University Intellectual Property on the Performance of University-Industry Research Collaboration.” Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (3): 273–301. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9253-z. O’Kane, C., V. Magematin, W. Geoghegan, and C. Fitzgerald. 2014. “University Technology Transfer Offices: The Search for Identity to Build Legitimacy.” Research Policy 44 (2): 421–37. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.003. Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Brostrom, P. D’Este, R. Fini, et al. 2013. “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University Industry Relations.” Research Policy 42 (2): 423–42. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. Pratt, M. G. 2009. “For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing up (and reviewing) Qualitative Research.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 856–862. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44632557. Preeble, J. F. 2005. “Towards a Comprehensive Model of Stakeholder Management.” Business and Society Review 110 (4): 407–31. doi:10.5367/ihe.2013.0165. Ranga, M., and H. Etzkowitz. 2013. “Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society.” Industry and Higher Education 27 (4): 237–62. doi:10.5367/ihe.2013.0165. Rossi, R., and A. Rosli. 2015. “Indicators of University-industry Knowledge Transfer Performance and their Implications for Universities: Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (10): 1970–1991. Seawright, J., and J. Gerring. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 81 (2): 294–308. doi:10.1177/1065912907313077. Shane, S. 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward UK: Elgar Publishing. Sharif, H., W., Liu, and S. Ismail. 2014. “Higher Education System and the ‘Open’ Knowledge Transfer: A View from Perception of Senior Managers at University Knowledge Transfer Offices.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (10): 1860–84. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.818645. Urbano, D., and M. Guerrero. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Universities: Socioeconomic Impacts of Academic Entrepreneurship in a European Context.” Economic Development Quarterly 27 (1): 40–55. doi:10.1177/0891242412471973. Watermeyer, R. 2014. “Issues in the Articulatiom of ‘Impact’: The Responses of UK Academics to ‘Impact’ as a New Measure of Research Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (2): 359–77. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709490. Willmott, H. 2003. “Commercialising Higher Education in the UK: The State, Industry and Peer Review.” Studies in Higher Education 28 (2): 129–41. doi:10.1080/0307507032000058127. Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. London: Sage. Zahra, S. A., M. Wright, and G. Abdelgawad. 2014. “Contextualisation and Advancement of Entrepreneurship Research.” International Small Business Journal 32 (5): 479–500. doi:10.1177/0266242613519807.",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1080/03075079.2016.1212328",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "1058--1073",
journal = "Studies in Higher Education",
issn = "0307-5079",
number = "6",

}

Understanding Quadruple Helix Relationships of University Technology Commercialisation: A Micro Level Approach. / McAdam, Maura; Miller, Kristel; McAdam, Rodney.

In: Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 43, No. 6, 17.08.2016, p. 1058-1073.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding Quadruple Helix Relationships of University Technology Commercialisation: A Micro Level Approach

AU - McAdam, Maura

AU - Miller, Kristel

AU - McAdam, Rodney

N1 - Reference text: Ambos, T. C., K. Makela, J. Birkinshaw, and P. D’este. 2008. “When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions.” Journal of Management Studies 45: 1424–1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008. 00804.x. Arnkil, R., A. Järvensivu, P. Koski, and T. Piirainen. 2010. Exploring Quadruple Helix – Outlining User-Oriented Innovation Models. University of Tampere, Institute for Social Research, Work Research Centre. Asheim, B. T., and L. Coenen. 2005. “Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters.” Research Policy 34 (8): 1173–90. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013. Bastalich, W. 2010. “Knowledge Economy and Research Innovation.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (7): 845–57. doi:10. 1080/03075070903406533. Bjerregaard, T. 2009. “University-industry Collaboration Strategies: A Micro Level Perspective.” European Journal of Innovation Management 12 (2): 161–176. doi:10.1108/14601060910953951. Carayannis, E. G., and D. F. J. Campbell. 2009. ““Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem.” International Journal of Technology Management 46 (3/4): 201–34. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374. Carayannis, E. G., and R. Rakhmatullin. 2014. “The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5 (2): 212–39. doi:10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8. De Silva, M. 2015. “Academic Entrepreneurship and Traditional Academic Duties: Synergy or Rilvary?” Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1029901. 14 K. MILLER ET AL. Dooley, L., and D. Kirk, 2007. “University-industry Collaboration: Grafting the Entrepreneurial Paradigm onto Academic Structures.” European Journal of Innovation Management 10 (3): 316–332. doi:10.1108/14601060710776734 Foster, D., and J. Jonker. 2005. “Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement.” Corporate Governance 5 (5): 51– 57. doi:10.1108/14720700510630059. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston. Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 191–205. doi:10.5465/AMR. 1999.1893928. Gephart, R. P. 1986. “Deconstructing the Defence for Quantification in Social Science: A Content Analysis of Journal Articles on the Parametric Strategy.” Qualitative Sociology 9 (2): 126–44. doi:10.1007/BF01314412. Gibb, A. 2010. Towards the Entrepreneurial University. Coventry: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. Gibson, C. B., and J. Birkenshaw. 2004. “The antecedents, Consequences and Mediating Role of Organisational Ambidexterity.” Academy of Management Journal 47 (2): 209–226. doi:10.2307/20159573 Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Greenwood, M. 2007. “Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 74 (4): 315–27. doi:10-1007/s10551-007-9509-y. Ivanova, I. 2014. “Quadruple Helix Systems and Symmetry: A Step Towards Helix Innovation System Classification.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5 (2): 357–69. doi:10-1007/s13132-014-0201-z. Labelle, F., and K. G. Aka. 2012. “Le processus d’innovation durable en contexte PME: Les effets d’un système générant des retombées positives.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 25 (4): 479–98. doi:10.1080/08276331.2012. 10593585. sLawler, C. 2011. “The Capitalisation of Knowledge: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government.” Studies in Higher Education 36 (6): 746–47. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.594602. Leydesdorff, L. 2011. “The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35. doi:10-1007/s13132-011-0049-4. Locke, K., and K. Golden-Biddle. 1997. “Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organisational Studies.” Academy of Management Journal 40 (5): 1023–62. doi:10.2307/ 256926. MacGregor, S. P., P. Marques-Gou, and A. Simon-Villar. 2010. “Gauging Readiness for the Quadruple Helix: A Study of 16 European Organisations.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 1 (3): 173–90. doi:10.1007/s13132-010-0012-9. Markman, G. D., D. S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2008. “Research and Technology Commercialization.” Journal of Management Studies 45: 1401–1423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x. Mate-Sanchez-Val, M., and R. Harris. 2014. “Differential Empirical Innovation Factors for Spain and the UK.” Research Policy 43 (2): 451–63. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.013. McAdam, R., W. Keogh, B. Galbraith, and D. Laurie. 2005. “Defining and Improving Technology Transfer Business and Management Processes in University Innovation Centres.” Technovation 25 (12): 1418–29. doi:10.1016/j. technovation.2004.08.002. McAdam, M., R. McAdam, R. B. Galbraith, B., and K. Miller. 2010. “An Exploratory Study of Principal Investigator Roles in UK University Proof-of-Concept Processes: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective.” R&D Management 40 (5): 455–73. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00619.x. McAdam, R., K. Miller, M. McAdam, and S. Teague. 2012. “The Development of University Technology Transfer Stakeholder Relationships at a Regional Level: Lessons for the Future.” Technovation 32 (1): 57–67. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011. 08.001. McKeever, E., A. Anderson, and S. Jack. 2014. “Social Embeddedness in Entrepreneurship Research: The Importance of Context and Community.” In Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, edited by E. Chell, and M. Karatas-Ozkan, 222–235. London: Edward Elgar. Mian, S. 2011. Science and Technology Based Regional Entrepreneurship: Global Experience in Policy and Program Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, K., M. McAdam, and R. McAdam. 2014. “The Changing University Business Model: A Stakeholder Perspective.” R&D Management 44 (3): 265–87. doi:10.1111/radm.12064. Miller, K., R. McAdam, S. Moffett, A. Alexander, and P. Puthusserry. 2016. Knowledge Transfer in University Quadruple Helix Ecosystems: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective. R&D Management, 46: 383–399. doi:10.1111/radm.12182. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” The Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853–86. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997. 9711022105. Morsing, M., and M. Schultz. 2006. “Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, Response and Involvement Strategies.” Business Ethics: A European Review 15 (4): 323–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x. Muscio, A., and A. Pozzali. 2013. “The Effect of Cultural Distance in University-industry Collaborations. Some evidence from Italian universities.” Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (4): 486–508. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9262-y. Muscio, A., and G. Vallanti, 2014. “Perceived Obstacles to University-industry Collaboration: Results from a Qualitative Survey of Italian Academic Departments.” Industry and Innovation 21 (5): 410–429. doi:10.1080/13662716.2014. 969935. Nooteboom, B., W. B. Havebeck, G. Duysters, V. Gisling, and A. van den Oord. 2007. “Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity.” Research Policy 36 (7): 1016–1034. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003. Neville, B.A., S.J. Bell, and G. J. Whitwell. 2011. “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool.” Journal of Business Ethics 102 (3): 357–78. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9. Okamuro, H., and J. Nishimura. 2013. “Impact of University Intellectual Property on the Performance of University-Industry Research Collaboration.” Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (3): 273–301. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9253-z. O’Kane, C., V. Magematin, W. Geoghegan, and C. Fitzgerald. 2014. “University Technology Transfer Offices: The Search for Identity to Build Legitimacy.” Research Policy 44 (2): 421–37. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.003. Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Brostrom, P. D’Este, R. Fini, et al. 2013. “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University Industry Relations.” Research Policy 42 (2): 423–42. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. Pratt, M. G. 2009. “For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing up (and reviewing) Qualitative Research.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 856–862. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44632557. Preeble, J. F. 2005. “Towards a Comprehensive Model of Stakeholder Management.” Business and Society Review 110 (4): 407–31. doi:10.5367/ihe.2013.0165. Ranga, M., and H. Etzkowitz. 2013. “Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society.” Industry and Higher Education 27 (4): 237–62. doi:10.5367/ihe.2013.0165. Rossi, R., and A. Rosli. 2015. “Indicators of University-industry Knowledge Transfer Performance and their Implications for Universities: Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (10): 1970–1991. Seawright, J., and J. Gerring. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 81 (2): 294–308. doi:10.1177/1065912907313077. Shane, S. 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward UK: Elgar Publishing. Sharif, H., W., Liu, and S. Ismail. 2014. “Higher Education System and the ‘Open’ Knowledge Transfer: A View from Perception of Senior Managers at University Knowledge Transfer Offices.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (10): 1860–84. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.818645. Urbano, D., and M. Guerrero. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Universities: Socioeconomic Impacts of Academic Entrepreneurship in a European Context.” Economic Development Quarterly 27 (1): 40–55. doi:10.1177/0891242412471973. Watermeyer, R. 2014. “Issues in the Articulatiom of ‘Impact’: The Responses of UK Academics to ‘Impact’ as a New Measure of Research Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (2): 359–77. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709490. Willmott, H. 2003. “Commercialising Higher Education in the UK: The State, Industry and Peer Review.” Studies in Higher Education 28 (2): 129–41. doi:10.1080/0307507032000058127. Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. London: Sage. Zahra, S. A., M. Wright, and G. Abdelgawad. 2014. “Contextualisation and Advancement of Entrepreneurship Research.” International Small Business Journal 32 (5): 479–500. doi:10.1177/0266242613519807.

PY - 2016/8/17

Y1 - 2016/8/17

N2 - Given recent demands for more co-creational university technology commercialisation processes involving industry and end users, this paper adopts a micro-level approach to explore the challenges faced by universities when managing Quadruple Helix stakeholders within technology commercialisation processes. To explore this research question,a qualitative research methodology which relies upon comparative case analysis was adopted to explore the technology commercialisation process in two universities within a UK region. The findings revealed that university type impacts Quadruple Helix stakeholder salience and engagement and consequently university technology commercialisation activities and processes. This is important as recent European regional policy fails to account for contextual influences when promoting QuadrupleHelix stakeholder relationships in co-creational university technology commercialisation.

AB - Given recent demands for more co-creational university technology commercialisation processes involving industry and end users, this paper adopts a micro-level approach to explore the challenges faced by universities when managing Quadruple Helix stakeholders within technology commercialisation processes. To explore this research question,a qualitative research methodology which relies upon comparative case analysis was adopted to explore the technology commercialisation process in two universities within a UK region. The findings revealed that university type impacts Quadruple Helix stakeholder salience and engagement and consequently university technology commercialisation activities and processes. This is important as recent European regional policy fails to account for contextual influences when promoting QuadrupleHelix stakeholder relationships in co-creational university technology commercialisation.

KW - Quadruple Helix

KW - Stakeholder theory

KW - multiple case analysis

KW - university-industry collaboration

KW - university entrepreneurship

KW - university technology commercialisation

U2 - 10.1080/03075079.2016.1212328

DO - 10.1080/03075079.2016.1212328

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 1058

EP - 1073

JO - Studies in Higher Education

T2 - Studies in Higher Education

JF - Studies in Higher Education

SN - 0307-5079

IS - 6

ER -