Findings in relation to the research questions

The first question: What is the nature and primary mode of U-I knowledge interaction in the Chinese MNC context? Drawing from the MNC case studies, it seems that in the case companies, the U-I projects or programs were more related to creating new knowledge and innovative ideas rather than directly using existing knowledge gained from university partners in China. It is also noticeable that company people have found it necessary to pay more attention to, and put greater efforts into, more interactive collaboration and interaction (e.g., knowledge co-creation) rather than conventional types of collaboration, which are quite static and passive (e.g., authorized or contract-based research) from a relationship interaction point of view. This finding is directly associated with the context of the case studies. Previous studies in similar research contexts indicated that the nature of U-I collaboration, in general, is innovation-driven (Hemmert et al., 2008; Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2000), multi-disciplinary (Hansson,

97

2007), and future-oriented (Daghfous, 2003; Hermans & Castiaux, 2007). Therefore, this finding has broad and important implications for other similar U-I collaboration worldwide. The specific context for this research, i.e. MNCs R&D collaboration in China leads to an emphasis on inter-cultural aspects, which if U-I studies are conducted in a similar multinational, multicultural context would mean that the generalizability of the results is even higher. This is mainly because the cultural gap between universities and companies in such a context is larger compared with the gap within the same and one national context.

The second key research question is concerned with culture: How do cultural factors influence effective U-I cross-border knowledge interaction? Both the in-depth interviews and participant observation indicated that the key challenge of U-I R&D collaboration and knowledge interaction in the Chinese MNC context was related to Chinese culture in terms of guanxi and its deeper and complex social and cultural mechanisms. This included, for instance, interpersonal relationship and trust, true interest and the relatedness of the research, mutual commitment and learning, intensive communication and interaction, and being aware of cultural and knowledge-related differences between the collaboration partners. The finding touches upon the key elements of Chinese guanxi.

The third research question is: How does knowledge moderate the influence of culture on effective U-I cross-border knowledge interaction? The answers from the study were theoretical in nature. The study suggested that a systematic analysis of the role of knowledge could best be approached from the following perspectives: 1) the nature, content and structure of knowledge; 2) collaboration-oriented knowledge concepts such as the common knowledge of cross-border knowledge holders, the value of the knowledge stock of the source organization, and the absorptive capacity of the recipient;

and 3) modes of and corresponding strategies for knowledge interaction of the collaboration partners. In previous studies related to the first two sets of knowledge-related variables, the role of knowledge has mainly been discussed at the level of national culture and one-way knowledge transfer from the source to recipient organization. The present study, however, focuses on different modes of knowledge

98

interaction, of which knowledge transfer is only one type. It is argued that in addition to the above-mentioned knowledge variables, intensity of the knowledge interaction (i.e., intensification from technology and knowledge transfer to knowledge integration and finally to collaborative knowledge creation) along with the corresponding strategies (i.e., exploitation vs exploration) should be taken into account and examined carefully.

A systematic analysis of the role of knowledge in cross-cultural knowledge interaction could best be approached from multiple aspects of knowledge, including not only the nature and characteristics of knowledge but also the process of knowledge (i.e., intensifications of knowledge interaction). An important proposition worth testing empirically is the relative importance of culture: the significance of culture may increase with increasing intensity of knowledge interaction from technology and knowledge transfer, to knowledge integration and collaborative knowledge creation.

The finding and other related propositions would be most valuable if they were systematically and empirically examined.

As a whole, the results of the study confirm the close relationship between the effectiveness of U-I knowledge interaction and good alignment of knowledge interaction strategies and approaches. An efficient matching strategy is what I would like to suggest be adopted (or targeted) when aspiring for effective U-I R&D collaboration and knowledge interaction. That is, the firm or university’s adoption of a knowledge interaction strategy and its corresponding approach should match up well with the knowledge type involved in the collaboration and interaction (explicit vs tacit knowledge), intended capability development practices (capability exploiting vs augmenting) and research tasks in hand (applied vs basic research). A knowledge exploitation or reuse strategy, for instance, cannot work efficiently if the type of knowledge involved in the collaboration is largely tacit. Knowledge as such is then not ready for the purpose of exploitation or reuse. A personalization strategy works better in the Chinese relationship-oriented and guanxi-based culture. It is very difficult to make tacit knowledge explicit or codified in such a society; moreover, even if the knowledge has been well codified and documented, it is still very hard to implement and utilize it since in such societies, operations tend to be managed by people, not in any sense by information, paper or document. The finding as a whole and the suggested strategy is

99

more related to relation-oriented cultures. This implies that in addition to China, the strategy may also be valid for other developing and transitional economies, Russia (Hutchings & Michailova, 2004), Arabian countries (Weir & Hutchings, 2005), the Middle East and North Africa (Weir, 2007) and Latin America (Calderón-Moncloa, 2007) where personal relationships and informality rather than impersonal and formal rules and procedures play a dominant role.