Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned?

In competitive knowledge-based economies, policymakers recognize the importance of universities’ engagement in third mission activities. This article investigates how a specific policy approach to encourage third mission engagement—the use of performance-based funding to reward universities’ success in this domain—aligns with the broader goals of third mission policy. Considering the case of the UK, the first country to have implemented a system of this kind, we analyse how the system has come into being and how it has evolved, and we discuss whether its implementation is likely to encourage universities to behave in ways that are aligned with the goals of third mission policy, as outlined in government documents. We argue that the system encourages universities to focus on a narrow range of income-producing third mission activities, and this is not well aligned with the policy goal to support a complex innovation ecosystem comprising universities with different third mission objectives and strategies. The article concludes by proposing possible avenues for achieving greater alignment between incentives and policy goals.

[1]  M. Kwiek,et al.  Chapter 13: European Commission Staff Working Document:Supporting Growth and Jobs: an Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe's Higher Education Systems , 2012 .

[2]  R. J. Howlett,et al.  Knowledge Transfer between UK Universities and Business , 2010 .

[3]  Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo,et al.  Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities , 2014 .

[4]  Richard C. Atkinson Universities and the Knowledge-Based Economy , 1996 .

[5]  H. Grupp,et al.  Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? , 2004 .

[6]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[7]  Federica Rossi,et al.  Monitoring the knowledge transfer performance of universities: an international comparison of models and indicators , 2015 .

[8]  Glenn A. Bowen Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method , 2009 .

[9]  Gabrielle Durepos,et al.  Encyclopedia of case study research , 2010 .

[10]  Marko Marhl,et al.  Third Mission Indicators for New Ranking Methodologies , 2011 .

[11]  Federica Rossi,et al.  Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom , 2015 .

[12]  B. Martin,et al.  University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison , 2003 .

[13]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Measuring third stream activities , 2002 .

[14]  Ron Dearing Higher education in the learning society [Dearing report] , 1997 .

[15]  John Pratt,et al.  The UK Technology Transfer System: Calls for Stronger Links Between Higher Education and Industry , 2000 .

[16]  Alexander Brem,et al.  Case Studies as Teaching Tools , 2009 .

[17]  Robert Drazin,et al.  Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design , 1997 .

[18]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  The use and development of indicators for the commercialisation of university research in a national support programme , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[19]  J. Hills,et al.  Labour’s social policy record: policy, spending and outcomes 1997-2010 , 2013 .

[20]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[21]  Nick von Tunzelmann,et al.  Assessing Collaborative, Pre-Competitive R&D Projects: The Case of the UK Link Scheme , 2002 .

[22]  David Eyton,et al.  Growing Value: Business-University Collaboration for the 21st Century , 2014 .

[23]  Edurne Magro,et al.  Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix , 2013 .

[24]  Richard E. Matland Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation , 1995 .

[25]  Mike Wright,et al.  Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries , 2008 .

[26]  Stelvia Matos,et al.  Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? , 2006 .

[27]  K. Mok Fostering entrepreneurship : changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong , 2005 .

[28]  H. Goldstein To What Extent is Academic Entrepreneurship Taken for Granted Within Research Universities? , 2010 .

[29]  S. Hatakenaka Development of third stream activity Lessons from international experience , 2005 .

[30]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice , 1995 .

[31]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation , 2011 .

[32]  Massimo Marraffa,et al.  Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice , 1998 .

[33]  J. Molas-Gallart,et al.  Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators , 2006 .

[34]  Ruth Williams,et al.  Putting higher education in its place: the socio-political geographies of English universities , 2013 .

[35]  Jill Ann Tarzian Sorensen,et al.  Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated––defining an access metric , 2008 .

[36]  Laurent Bach,et al.  How do firms perceive policy rationales behind the variety of instruments supporting collaborative R&D? Lessons from the European Framework Programs , 2014 .

[37]  Robert Huggins,et al.  Regional Policy and University Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives from Devolved Regions in the UK , 2012 .

[38]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  Transferring technology and expertise from universities to industry: Britain's Teaching Company Scheme , 1994 .

[39]  Employment,et al.  Opportunity for all in a world of change , 2001 .

[40]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[41]  Rómulo Pinheiro,et al.  The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: introduction to the special issue , 2015 .

[42]  Kevin J. Dougherty,et al.  The Impacts of State Performance Funding Systems on Higher Education Institutions: Research Literature Review and Policy Recommendations , 2011 .

[43]  Tomas Coates Ulrichsen Knowledge exchange performance and the impact of HEIF in the English higher education sector , 2014 .

[44]  Richard Florida,et al.  The Role of the University: Leveraging Talent, not Technology. , 1999 .

[45]  C. Hood,et al.  The tools of government in the digital age , 2007 .

[46]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing preferences for knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[47]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  The governance of University knowledge transfer , 2008 .

[48]  R. Pinheiro,et al.  Strategizing Identity in Higher Education , 2014 .

[49]  I. Hargreaves Digital opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth for HMG , 2011 .

[50]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[51]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  ‘Only Connect’: Academic–Business Research Collaborations and the Formation of Ecologies of Innovation , 2010 .

[52]  P. Boekholt,et al.  Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe , 2009 .

[53]  Mike Wright,et al.  The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications , 2007 .

[54]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Towards indicators for opening up S&T policy , 2013 .

[55]  Pedro N. Teixeira,et al.  Funding reforms and revenue diversification – patterns, challenges and rhetoric , 2013 .

[56]  Laura Abramovsky,et al.  Increasing innovative activity in the UK? Where now for government support for innovation and technology transfer? , 2004 .

[57]  Kevin J. Dougherty,et al.  Performance Funding for Higher Education: What Are the Mechanisms What Are the Impacts , 2013 .

[58]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Searching Low and High : What Types of Firms use Universities as a Source of Innovation ? , 2003 .

[59]  Nola Hewitt-Dundas,et al.  Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities , 2012 .

[60]  H. Etzkowitz Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[61]  Mike Wright,et al.  The Institutionalization of Third Stream Activities in UK Higher Education: The Role of Discourse and Metrics , 2015 .

[62]  Wilfred Dolfsma,et al.  Government policy and technological innovation—a suggested typology , 2013 .

[63]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[64]  Patricio Montesinos,et al.  Third Mission Ranking for World Class Universities: Beyond Teaching and Research , 2008 .

[65]  G. Potts Regional Policy and the 'Regionalization' of University-Industry Links: A View from the English Regions , 2002 .

[66]  S. Sörlin Funding Diversity: Performance-based Funding Regimes as Drivers of Differentiation in Higher Education Systems , 2007 .

[67]  R. Lambert,et al.  Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report , 2003 .

[68]  Larry M. Dooley,et al.  The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions , 2011 .

[69]  A. Langley Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[70]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[71]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[72]  Fumi Kitagawa,et al.  Knowledge exchange: a comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education , 2013 .

[73]  R. Pinheiro,et al.  Designing the Entrepreneurial University: The Interpretation of a Global Idea , 2014 .

[74]  Rob Lee Social Capital and Business and Management: Setting a Research Agenda , 2009 .

[75]  A. Kay,et al.  The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory And Evidence , 2006 .

[76]  H. Smith Universities, Innovation, and Territorial Development: A Review of the Evidence , 2007 .

[77]  I. Ràfols,et al.  Towards indicators for ‘ opening up ’ science and technology policy , 2012 .

[78]  Oswald Jones,et al.  Beyond the routine: innovation management and the Teaching Company Scheme , 2001 .

[79]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Process studies of change in organization and management : unveiling temporality, activity, and flow , 2013 .

[80]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Universities in National Innovation Systems , 2006 .

[81]  T. Vorley,et al.  From policy to practice: engaging and embedding the third mission in contemporary universities , 2010 .

[82]  R. Robichau,et al.  The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link , 2009 .

[83]  Andy Neely,et al.  How Should Firms Evaluate Success in University-Industry Alliances? A Performance Measurement System , 2010 .

[84]  Rossi Federica,et al.  Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting , 2010 .

[85]  Pierre Lascoumes,et al.  Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation , 2007 .

[86]  Alok K. Chakrabarti,et al.  Building social capital and learning environment in university - industry relationships , 2004 .

[87]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[88]  Laura R. Meagher,et al.  Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research , 2008 .

[89]  M. Kapsali How to implement innovation policies through projects successfully , 2011 .

[90]  A. Salter,et al.  Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? , 2004 .