Cultural exploration in previous studies

Research on U–I knowledge interaction conducted so far is primarily related to studies on cultural influences across organizational boundaries. Universities and companies are different in nature. Their objectives and activities are different and so are their ways of thinking and doing things. From the point of view of the organizational culture, one major difference lies in the value they hold for research and its outcomes. Universities hold basic research in high regard, whereas companies focus on applied research;

65

universities emphasize the value of research per se, whereas companies most often focus on the practical side of research and the profit maximization that might be derived. Some researchers regard the impact of such differences negatively, as a collaboration barrier (Declercq, 1981); others consider it the very reason for collaboration (Lee, 1996; López-Martinez et al., 1994).

The U–I studies that deal with the fundamental differences between two types of organizations focus particularly on goal formation, time orientation, language and assumptions (Cyert & Goodman, 1997; Elmuti et al., 2005), agreeing on priorities and timescales, publishing in the public domain, and the academic laissez-faire approach vs industrial lack of flexibility (Barnes et al, 2002). Cyert and Goodman (1997) believe that the differences between university and company partners manifest themselves in divergent goals (to create and disseminate knowledge vs to produce products and services), time orientations (longer, less well-defined time periods vs quarterly goals), and language and assumptions (reputation outside the university vs supervisors within the company). Searching for an overview of strategic alliances between universities and corporations, Elmuti et al. (2005) highlight the different working cultures of partners and values that may have negative effects on effective alliance collaboration and interaction, and which demand continuous learning and restructuring processes to be overcome. Similar to Cyert and Goodman (1997), essential differences identified in their study include different goals (creating and spreading knowledge vs producing products and services), time approaches (long- vs short-term), and language and assumptions (related to communication efficiency).

Barnes et al. (2002), studying collaborative R&D projects, conclude from their U–I collaboration cases that the main cultural issue to emerge is the need to agree on priorities and timescales. These issues are also discussed in the wider debate on rigor and relevance in relation to collaborative research between academics and business practitioners (e.g., Van de Ven, 2002). Also prominent is the need to manage perceptions and issues on both sides regarding the academic right to publish and the student agenda. This latter factor is related to perceptions of the role of student researchers on such projects. Along with others, Barnes et al. (2002: 282) consider fundamental differences in the relative priorities, perspectives and time horizons of

66

academia and industry, “a major obstacle to successful university-industry collaborations.” On managing the cultural gap as one of the key elements for a good practice model of collaboration management, they refer to the bridging of differing priorities/timescales, publishing in the public domain, the academic laissez-faire approach, industry’s lack of flexibility, and IPR and confidentiality.

The study of Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000) examines the institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities between industrial firms and university research centers.

This is one of few direct studies on the impact of culture on U–I knowledge interaction activities. Their empirical results show that knowledge transfer activities are facilitated when industrial firms have more mechanistic structures, cultures that are more stable and direction-oriented, and when the firm is more trusting of its university research center partner. Thus, they propose that the more stable and direction-oriented an organization’s culture, the greater the institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities; in other words, the more flexible and change-oriented an organization’s culture, the less the institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities⁶. A key feature of stable and direction-oriented culture is risk-avoidance; preferring stability and status-quo rather than the uncertainty of change. In contrast, flexible and change-oriented cultures encourage risk-taking and a constant search for new knowledge streams. In their research, the institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities ranged from high factor loading activities, like the firm’s involvement in curriculum development, to relatively low factor loading activities such as the number of personnel exchanges with the university research center.

As we can see from the brief review above, U–I research on culture is primarily within a local context, and research in cross-cultural settings remains an interesting gap. The national or societal culture, for instance, may significantly influence U–I knowledge interaction. A recent and exceptional study of U-I collaboration in Japan and Korea (Hemmert et al., 2008), for instance, indicates that there is no universally best way to run a collaboration, as it is strongly influenced by cultural features which are specific to

6 There is also a view in the literature that appreciates the paradoxical nature of organizational culture and structure as entailing elements of both stability and change which are contradictory but also mutually enabling (e.g., Farjoun, 2010).

67

countries or regions. One interesting cultural difference the authors observed is that Japanese firms appear to rely to a great extent on trust when collaborating with universities, whereas their Korean counterparts seem to emphasize more contractual safeguards and the role of innovation champions. This highlights the potential relevance of national cultural features for the organization and outcomes of research collaboration between companies and universities. Japanese firms use wider networks when searching for collaboration partners. Furthermore, there is a more rule-based approach by universities regarding IPR policies and a somewhat higher satisfaction with U-I collaboration outcomes in Japan. While their Korean counterparts encounter more difficulties of developing organizational trust and therefore use more intensively contractual safeguards as an alternative mechanism to reduce relational uncertainty.

Moreover, the more importantly perceived role of innovation champions in Korean U-I collaborations has stronger linkage to the relatively more hierarchical leadership style in Korea when compared with Japan.