Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 3
Review of Literature and Theoretical Perspectives
3.0 Introduction
The institutional processes of knowledge production, knowledge transfer and the
relationship of industry to the sources of knowledge have lately undergone considerable
change from an earlier era when academia and industry were viewed as two clearly
defined and distinct entities. Over the rears, academia both accommodated and induced
change and apart from the sole responsibility of teaching, it gradually indulged into
research activities. However, beyond building research capacity in emerging and
interdisciplinary fields the capability of academic research institutions to utilize the
knowledge resources has been recognised. This also means strategising for utilisation of
its intellectual assets that have potential for commercialisation in a judicious manner, such
that academia does not lose its academic credibility. In this context, the emergence of
entrepreneurial university draws our attention wherein it is asserted that this kind of a
research university translates its research findings into use through a variety of
mechanisms such as liaison offices, contracts with firms, patenting, licensing, and so on,
which gives the university some aspects of a business, while retains its previous classical
functions (Tomatzky and Gray, 2003).
This chapter reviews relevant literature on knowledge production and knowledge
transfer from academic research institutions and explores innovation studies relevant to
. academia-industry linkages. This chapter also reviews the transformation of the
relationship between academia, industry and government and the effect this transformation
has had, and is currently having, on the knowledge production system. The approach is
that the essence of the relationships between the institutions can be captured from among
the different concepts on innovation including the 'triple helix' framework. This chapter
83
begins wi.th the discussion on the role and behaviour of academic institutions, historically
tracing the development from the 'first academic revolution' where the sole focus was
teaching and subsequently research responsibility was appended to the mission of
knowledge generating institutions; to the 'second academic revolution' of academic
institutions increasingly getting engaged in contributing to economic development of the
sector/region/nation. The subsequent section, which is the heart of this chapter, entails
discussion on the theoretical concepts primarily on knowledge production and transfer and
innovations: namely the 'National Systems of Innovation' (NSI); 'Mode l' and 'Mode 2';
and 'Triple Helix'. Discussion on challenges before academic institutions constitutes the
next segment which also focuses on interaction between academia and industry. The next
section on literature survey of knowledge production and knowledge transfer, start-up
firms, incubation units and studies on the factors contributing to success and failure of
technology transfers, is followed by a discussion on emergence of entrepreneurial
university. The main objective of exploration and literature review in the chapter is to
develop an appropriate theoretical framework and perspective for study of IITs. This
exercise of critical literature review is seen to be helpful and at the same time important to
derive some operational hypotheses for the empirical study of IITs later in Chapters 4 and
5 i.e. the chapter on knowledge production and academia - industry relations: the modes of
knowledge transfer at IITs.
&4
3.1 First and Second Academic Revolutions
According to Spariosu (2004: 167), the history of university can be traced as far
back as Pythagoras, Eudoxus of Megara, Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle; while its modem
avatars begin in the 11 th century at Bologna and in the twelfth century at Paris and Oxford.
The history of higher education in the Asian subcontinent would list out ancient
institutions in China in different dynasties (Western Zhou, Han or Jin dynasty) and in
India during the Gupta Empire (Takshila and Nalanda). However the modem institutions
of higher education in these two countries came up only in the late eighteenth century1l4.
In the middle ages, universities began by training people such as lawyers, physicians, and
churchmen (today's middle-class professionals). In their first medieval phase, universities
were seen as cultural forces that attempted to pull away from the prevailing aristocratic
values towards their middle-class counterparts In other words they were seen as
"democratizing" forces in a feudal society. The conflict between aristocratic and middle
class values in academia can also be recognized in the present day academic institutions.
Moving from medieval to modem phase, the academic institutions gradually got more and
more influenced by the philosophical faculties. According to Reading (1996: 14), the r-
history of ~ous-ways~of understanding the functions of the university could be roughly ~ ••• r~~ ._ ... ____ - -~ - _--,"~
summarized by saying that the modem university has had three ideas: the Kantian concept -- ----------- ---, - -_.- ~
of reason, the Humboldtian idea of culture and now the techno-bureaucratic notion of ~ c - -, ,----~---- ~ ~
excellence. He says "reason on the one hand, provides the ratio for all the disciplines; it is ----their organizing principle. On the other hand, reason has its own faculty, which Kant
names 'philosophy' which in contemporary terms would mean 'humanities'. In his
thinking on the university, Kant also posed the problem of how reason and the state, how
knowledge and power, might be unified. Under the rubric of culture, the university is
assigned the dual task of research and teaching, respectively the production and
inculcation of national self-knowledge".
114The history of modem higher education in China is approximately of 100 years duration. Beijing University, established in 1898 is one of the earliest foundations. In India, the first higher education institution was in !he form of an industrial school established at Guindy, Madras, in 1842, which ultimately became the Guindy College of Engineering and got its affiliation to the Madras University in 1858. The first engineering college however, was established in the United Province in 1847 for training civil engineers at Roorkee (http://www.education.nic.in/tecedu.asp). Later on in 1857, three prominent universities were established in University ofCa1cutta, Bombay and Madras.
85
Initially conceived as institutions of cultural conservation, preservation, and
transmission, the medieval institutions existed solely for that purpose for many years. The
way systems of higher education developed harks back to the principal German referential
model having origins in the philosophy of the Wilhelm von Humboldt. This Humboldtian
model laid special emphasis on faculty autonomy and placed utmost importance on the
duty of university to conduct both teaching and research. Humboldt's philosophy also
stressed Hildung (the overall education of the individual) versus Ausbildung (education
specifically geared towards employment)lIs.
In the United States, the first academic revolution came up in the mid nineteenth
century at institutions like Harvard and Colombia where professors, often inspired by their
German doctoral mentors, sought to initiate research training programs and advanced
degrees (Etzkowitz, 2002). The transformation of universities from institutions of cultural ._-_.-'" --.-preservation and maintenance of knowledge to institutions for the creation of new
knowledge-is~kn;w~ ~~ th-~ academic revolutionll6. Here the role of ~-tat~ ~as
considered important. The second academic revolution, which entails the translation of
research into products and into new enterprises started almost at the same time as the first;
the former almost immediately engendering the latter (Etzkowitz et aI., 1998: 2). In the
contemporary period, the research university assumes a third function that of economic ---
development (also see OECD, 1987; Martin and Etzkowitz, 2000; cj~~ 1998) .,.,.,.-
Many of the changes that universities went through during the industrial revolution
and that remain relevant in the present context are reflected in John Henry Cardinal
Newman's The Idea of a University first published in 1852 but revised by the author in
1859 and in 1873 117. According to Spariosu (2004: 166), two conflicting impulses have
115 Albritton, Jr. Humboldt's Unity of Research and Teaching: Influence on the Philosophy and Development of Higher Education in the U.S. from http://ssm.com/abstract=939811 accessed on 12 February 2008 116 The reference about first academic revolution is found in Christopher and Reisman (1968) which was made in the context of having an egalitarian environment and an education system emphasizing on meritocracy. According to Grant and Murray (1999: 224), "the first academic revolution was congruent with the dominant societal values of individualism and an emphasis on equal opportunity that presumed radical inequality of outcomes based on individual effcrt and talene. 117Newman grapples with the same conflict between middle·class educational values (which he largely deplores) and aristocratic values (which he largely idealizes) in his concept of higher education as a gentlemanly, disinterested pursuit toward institutional excellence. For Newman, university is "a place of teaching universal knowledge". At top of the
86
laid the foundations for two academic paradigms that have emerged since the 19th century
as dominant ones in western academia and have also been exported to other parts of the
World. In the first paradigm the university is organised as_<!~tadel O~}~llq~l~gge~'_~n~/ ------corresponds to the aristocratic or elitist impulse. In the second paradigm university is
structured as a "fac!2ry of knowl<;:Qg~ and corresponds to the democratic or popular.............-
impulse. These impulses h<l:ve been present all along, in one form or another, in most, if
not all historical institutions of higher learning ll8. Here the author's description of the
'products' from the 'factory of knowledge' is indicative of the knowledge base and other
forms of knowledge assets (intellectual property, publications etc.) which this study
addresses to.
As mentioned abov~, the modern academic institutions in the contemporary phase,
have yielded to the techno-bureaucratic notion of excellence, and this phenomena has
occurred in many countries, under the impact of globalisation, wherein according to
Reading (1996: 47) "the State does not disappear, it simply becomes more and more
managerial, increasingly incapable of imposing its ideological will, which is to say,
incapable of imposing its will as the political content of economic affairs". Here the
question that Reading poses is if the university, once stripped of its cultural mission, can
be something other than a bureaucratic arm of the unipolar capitalist system. The three
functions that are still invoked in the contemporary university are research, teaching and
administration. The last of these is, of course, the most rapidly expanding field in terms of
the allocation of resources and its expansion is symptomatic of the breakdown of the
German idealist contract between research and teaching (Reading; 1996: 125).
pyramid one can find the Ivy league schools in US, 'Oxbridge' in England, and Grandes Ecoles in France (Spariosu: 2004: 172). 118These two paradigms are noted to be seen in a relationship of reciprocal causality generating complex feedback loops. University as Citadel of knowledge entails that there is the aristocratic idea of knowledge as power-whether it is under the guise of a free, disinterested, and leisurely intellectual pursuit-that must remain the privilege of a few and therefore must be guarded and defended from the assault and penetration of masses. In 2nd case, where university is organised as 'factory of knowledge', one perhaps develops the factory analogy by describing specific academic forms of Fordism, Taylorism, and their contemporary 'neo and post' variants, as well as other bureaucratic rationalizations of intellectual labour, typical of academic mass production. Spariosu (2004), describing the academic institutes as 'factory of knowledge' says that academic sweatshops as a source of cheap intellectual labour, under today's nea-Iiberal and bureaucratic academic paradigm, concerned mainly with techno-sciences, have become relatively cheap source of intellectual labour for the corporate world.
87
The emergence of positivist ways of thinking in the late 19th century might in the
end have contributed to the bureaucratization of academia and vice-versa. Positivist
thinking might thus have contributed to the rise of positivistic scientific culture, the
explosion of industrial technology, the proliferation of narrowly conceived fields of
specialization, and the corresponding fragmentation of traditional disciplines, the
formation of a technocratic mentality and the establishment of a managerial educational
model (Spariosu, 2004: 180). Harpur (2006) echoes a caveat stating that the transformation
proposed via the entrepreneurial university may become the only tool for assessing
solutions and attributing value and regressively, it contains a strand of positivist thinking
that had shifted out of philosophy but clearly not out of technology influenced thinking .
. ~ A Further Academic·Revolution
The principal writings of Etzkowitz et aI., (1998: 1) draws attention to a new
common form of academic institution that has emerged in the late 12th century-from its
medieval origin as a corporation of scholars to the contemporary entrepreneurial
university. The entrepreneurial academic institutions characterise their role as the source
of future industrial development, both by establishing organizational mechanisms to
transfer knowledge and technology and by playing a strategic role in regional
development. The entrepreneurial university retains the traditional academic roles of
social reproduction and extension of certified knowledge but places them in a broader
context as part of its new role in promoting innovation (Etzkowitz, 2003). In an
entrepreneurial academic institution, the academic research groups, consisting of faculty,
graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, technicians etc become <quasi-firms', taking on
some of the organizational characteristics of a firm in industry. ARls, bringing together
research groups across disciplines, often in collaboration with firm and government
researchers, take this process a step further.
The entrepreneurial university in the analysis of Etzkowitz et aI. (2000) has
essential characteristics which are found in them as emergent structures and
developmental mechanisms. The first is Interna! Transformation in which ~aditional
academic tasks are redefined and expanded according to requirements of n~wly emerging
functions. The authors explain that as the university enlarges its role in innovation,
88
controversies anse such as the propriety of extension of academic mISSIon from
dissemination to capitalization of knowledge, but over time new rules and roles are
defined and legitimated such that the university reformulates its mi-ssion to incorporate the
entrepreneurial paradigm. Second characteristic is the Interface Process where the
entrepreneurial university needs an enhanced capability for intelligence, monitoring and
negotiation with other institutional spheres in particular, government and industry. Here in
due course of time through centralization or decentralization, the entrepreneurial paradigm
takes hold of interface capabilities across the university. By centralized interface
capabilities they mean TIOs or spin-offs facilitators. Faculty and other technical ..---personnel are assigned responsibility to assess the commercial salience of research
findings and are encouraged to have interaction with external partners. Third characteristic
is Recursive Effects where university as entrepreneur, besides establishing links with
existing organisations, develops capabilities to aid in the creation of new organisations in
the form of academia spawned firms, or leadership in forming regional organisations. The
consequences are the genesis of trilateral organisations where interface leading to
likelihood of collaboration in creating cross-institutional entities is anticipated. Special
centres that have personnel from all three institutional spheres and joint ventures involving
firms are thus possible. Fourth characteristic is the Trans-institutional Impact where in
university-industry-govemment relationships explain the current transitions in the research
system; the two spheres apart from uniyersity also increasingly develop similar
intermediary capabilities. Gradually formats for collaboration are institutionalised in legal
and customary formats I 19. The implications and consequences associated with such
characteristics may describe the transformation of a research university to an
entrepreneurial one. /'
Raines and Leathers (2003: 225) observe that the emergence of entrepreneurial
university viewed from the perspective of Veblen's analysis of universities' behaviour, is
a logical development in the continuation of the evolutionary process of change that was
underway in the early 1900s. The modem entrepreneurial university is simply the latest
~-
Ilq Example of such development is the US Co-operative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
89
manifestation of Veblen's 'educational enterprises' (Veblen, 1918 (1993: 140) as quoted
in Raines and Leathers, 2003).
This study thus attempts to explore the issue if ARIs such as fITs that exist today
are increasingly seen to shift their functioning from being just a 'factory of knowledge' to
addressing research function in addition to teaching. Further, this study is also concerned
with the issue of the shift of institutions towards largely embracing the notion oj
'entrepreneurial university'. The study thus also explores the shift that is observed in IITs.
3.1.1 Challenges Confronting Academia in Knowledge Production & Transferl20
Although academic research institutes (ARIs) are gradually being looked as
potential source of innovations by industry, many of the firms nevertheless view them
primarily as source of trained persons and skills, and as centres for problem solving. Many
academic researchers also oppose technology transfer and other commercial activities,
believing that it takes resources away from research. Many scholars have expressed their
concern over academic institutions losing their basic role (Lee, 1996; Nelson, 2002;
Rogers, 1986) and that promoting commercialisation in academic institutions would
change the institutional rules in the manner research is conducted (Dasgupta and David,
1994). These issues come across as prime challenges before an academic research institute
which are historically rooted in range of literature on culture of science, education,
economic systems, innovation, management, and so on. Moreover, the involvement of
academia for economic development, in protection of intellectual property and the notion
of 'entrepreneurial university' suggest a major shift in their functioning, adding to the
concerns of people who oppose such developments. There are studies which suggest that
iQcreased property rights to knowledge and innovation would facilitate exchange of
knowledge and development of further innovation (Teece, 1986 & 1996; Arora, 1995,
Etzkowitz et aI., 1998). Thus the important issue here is that many ARIs go by this logic
120 As the focus of the thesis is on addressing the issue of knowledge production and transfer in academic institutions particularly in the light of these opera:ing in a new economic order that place academi:! as source of innovation, this study does not get into the larger debate of discussing knowledge as a public good (see Lee, 1996; Nelson, 1994, 2004; David and Dasgupta, 1994; Bok. 1990) or the tussle between culture of science and culture of research (see Latour, 1998).
90
and note that intellectual property rights to knowledge assets tend to facilitate investment
in knowledge production which also leads to trading in the patented results of research.
Having looked at some of these concerns, we ought to look at the literature on
knowledge production and knowledge transfer in the context of academic research
institutes in much more detail. The idea is to highlight some of the issues in the literature
and relate them to this empirical study on IITs. But before we overview the literature, it
would be appropriate to list some of the studies in the wider field of academia industry
interaction emphasising on studies in India.
Apart from those we have already discussed in the prevIOus sections, the
interaction of the US universities with industry has been studied by many researchers
(Cohen et aI., 1993, 1998; 2000; Graff et aI., 2002; Henderson et aI., 1998; Shane, 2002;
Colyvas et aI., 2002; Siegel et aI., 2003). Berman (1990) has shown that, despite an
estimated lag in converting research into hard products or processes in the market place,
"collaboration not only increases future industrial research, but also speeds up the transfer
and utilisation of academic research in industry"m.
In India, the interaction of academia with industry in the traditional sense -of being
a source of well educated and trained graduates has been dominant over all other benefits
arising out of mutual interaction. Academia as a source of problem solving institutions for - .~-, ---- --~.-- ---... -- -"
industry is also given due importance. As a matter of concern, lack of trust and sense of
respect for each other have been highlighted as major problem areas for the relationship
between the two entities. -'<:'<,------
Academia-industry interface in India, though in dormant and implicit state, existed
even before independence in 1947. The pioneering efforts of P C Ray in Bengal through -interaction between Indian School of Chemistry and Bengal Chemicals in early 1920s;
inauguration of university-industrial relationship by S S Bhatnagar's Chemical laboratory
J~J There are studies in other countries, studying the university and industrial transfonnation, for instance see Webster (1994) for an international evaluation of academia-industry relations in a broader innovation system; Jacob et al. (2003) for study on Sweden; Geuna (2001) on European Universities; Inzelt (2004) on Hungary; Kondo (2004) and Fujigaki and Nagata (1998) on Japan, and Sutz (2000) on Latin America.
91
in Lahore in 1926, where a series of industrial problems were undertaken; are examples in
this direction (Krishna, 1993). The importance of university-industry linkages in India
was recognized in a major way in 1961, when Thacker Committee stressed the need for
the establishment of various forms and mechanisms of cooperative relationship between
industry and academic institutes. The journey since then has continued with the
establishment of several commissions, committees, councils and institutions by the Indian
govemmentl22. Studies on academia-industry linkages in India are strikingly few taking
into account the studies depicting research capabilities of higher academic research
institutions and their output to industryl23. Some of the generic studies on the subject are
by Vidyasagar et aI., (1996) that focus on greater need for high quality technical education
to produce technically skilled manpower in India; by Mehrotra (1982) who emphasises on
closer university-industry cooperation and the benefits of the latest advances in scientific
knowledge and innovation that can be made more readily available for the welfare of the
society, thus enhancing the image of science; by Joseph and Parthasarathi (2'()03) who
address academia-industry interface and its dynamics from a policy perspective; by Rajan
and Wadhwa (1999) where they describe the problems in absorption and adaptation of
technologies in India. Chidambaram (1999) highlights the patterns and priorities in Indian
research and development and reflects that as India increasingly becomes globally
competitive, technology would be denied more and more for commercial reasons like it
was being done in strategic areas. He discusses the intellectual property right issues which
122 As mentioned by Kharbanda (2000), Kothari commission in 1964-66 and Bhide in 1969 did suggest useful methods of promoting linkages between universities, R&D laboratories and industryl~2. The other committees at the national level advocating the need for a stronger and closer university-industry collaboration include discipline-oriented expert committee of University Grants Commission (UGC) and National Council of Science and Education (NCSE); research committees of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR); Review committee on Post-Graduate Education and Research in Engineering and Technology (1971); Satish Chandra Committee on UGC (1980) and so on. The principal agencies making efforts in this direction of enhancing cooperation and interaction between academic institutes and industry are All India Council for Technical Education, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, UGC and Department of Science & Technology (DST). The efforts have culminated in establishment of Technology Transfer Organisations (NRDC) way back in 1953, Industry-University cells, Science and Technology Entrepreneurs Parks (STEPs), University-Industry Consortia and so on. They have also resulted in schemes promoted by the DST like Home Grown Technologies, Programme aimed at Technological Self Reliance (PATSER), and Technology Development Fund. m Morehouse (1977) study focused on the role of public research laboratories and their industry interaction rather than academic institutions. He noted that scientists in the laboratories were not sure about the economic feasiibiity of the inventions before the research is performed. Although studies have been done in India examining the cases of technology transfer (Qureshi et a\., 1984; Nath, 1988; Subrahmanian, 1985; Desai, 1980) they are limited in number and involve public funded research laboratories. Swaminadhan (I 995} and Raju (1995) speak on the linkages and interaction between technical educational institutions and user agencies such as industry, R&D and -design organisations and development sectors which they suggest are not sufficiently strong.
92
according to him, would become progressively more significant and as a result Indian
industry would increase its interaction with indigenous R&D ... it would therefore link up
with national laboratories and university system, which is essential for strengthening the
in-house effort. The absence of literature in this area is probably because. the trend has
been that the firms still overlook academia as potential source of innovation and import
technologies to meet their requirement. The building up of industrial capacity of the
country has proceeded almost totally on the basis of imported technology (Parthasarathi,
1987; Desai, 1980; Rajan and Wadhwa, 1999). Closely associated with the feature of
globalisation, is the policy discourse rod trend of un~versity-industry relations and the
corporatisation of academic science, this aspect has been discussed in Krishna (2001)
whereiii-iCis 61Js;~~d that in a situati~n of stagnating financial budgets for higher
educational institutions, there is a severe pressure on the part of universities, Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs) and other educational institutions to redefine their
objectives to institutionalise the needs and demands of industrial clients, particularly the ~<
Trans-national Corporations (TNCs) in the current phase of liberalisation. There are
studies on academia-industry interaction elaborating on nature and form of interaction by
Ansari and Sharma (1991) and Chandrakant et al. (1982); on the linkages of research
institutions with academic institutions and industrial organisations NISTADS (1989); and
on the nature and scope of industry-institute interactions in India by Natarajan (1998)124.
Raghunath (1997) notes that industry-academia interaction is a rarity in India but, with the
corporatisation of the economy and the increasing need for trained manpower, corporate
. organisations are willing to play a proactive role in the development of university and
professional education in India. Sandelin (2006) also observes that very little
University/Industry collaboration exists in India, there is limited research by Universities
which is more so at research institutes. /
There are apparently no studies specifically on IITs and their research contribution
to industry from a social science perspective. There are limited studies from which
scattered view-points are known on the functioning and industry interface ofIITs125. For
124 Also see Parthasarathi (1998) for a general view; Siddhartha (2002) for role of IPR in technology commercialisation 125 One generic study on I1Ts is by Deb (2004) who primarily gives an account of the functioning of IITs. It is more of an inside account of the life in an itT system and successful profile of liT graduates and alumni.
93
instance V S Raju (1995) opines that, there is a crucial need for building bridges between
academia and industry. In the Indian context, IITs are one of the earliest to promote and
have institutional mechanisms for working with industry. Indiresan (2004) observes IITs
as premier institutes in terms of their academic credibility and excellence but he also
highlights the problems they face. Indiresan's (2003) study is a report presented on
Research Projects on India- 2025 on the theme of technology policy in a vision for the
future where he highlights the role of IITs. According to Indiresan and Nigam (1993)
while the achievements of the liT -system are considerable, it has faced criticism on issues,
such as, high cost of technical education, brain drain, urban and elitistic orientation, and
inadequate interaction with industry. Indiresan (2004) however observes that Indian
industry has not particularly been interested in technology development; it has little use
for the kind of expertise the IITs possess. A similar opinion is that of Sengupta (1999)
where he observes that Indian industry has so far preferred to go for international
collaborations rather than to academic or domestic R&D organisations in search of new
technologies, or even when technological solutions are called for to address issues like up
gradation Or modernisation of the existing process. Nevertheless the problem also lies with
.academic institutes, who have apparently not been successful in building trust with
industry in terms of not being able to commercialise their intellectual property. Here
although there are very few empirical studies it has been noted that Indian laboratories
boast of many innovations but few of them ever reach the market (Indiresan, 2003). The
more recent accounts specifically on research output of academic research institutions can
be seen in Chandra (2003) that gives an empirical account of the industry interaction of
liT Delhi, its technology transfers and the role of a technology transfer office.
Bhattacharya and Arora (2007) discuss the industrial linkages and their implications in
seven Indian universities, including the IITs, establishing that growth in academia
industry interaction is not universal although perception is changing towards utilising
academic intellectual property.
In India, as this thesis would show, that university, industry and government have
been trying various methods to create an environment for interchange of knowledge and
thereby increase productivity and economic growth. The government has emphasised that
94
education and research must be geared to relevance, competence, excellence,
entrepreneurship and development. It is increasingly being advocated that higher
educational and research institutions should be involved not only in generating but also in
transferring such knowledge to industry and to the society at large. They should act as
seedbeds for technological innovation and new industrial ideas. This has been noted by
Menon (2002), where he says that part of the university function can be seen as
generators, storehouses and transmitters of new scientific knowledge to science based
industries. They are the vital participants in the technology transfer process.
Having briefly reviewed the historical transition of academia and noted the
significant transitions from the function of teaching to research to entrepreneurial
activities, noting the challenges confronting the academia in knowledge production and
transfer system, and discussing on academia-industry interface in the Indian context, it is
appropriate to further explore the relevant literature that has been reported more so in the
last two decades. It may be pointed out that the role of universities or more precisely the
role of academic sector has drawn the research attention of scholars not only from
innovation and science and technology policy studies but from social sciences. The
current phase of globalisation and the discourse on knowledge societies and knowledge
based economies has drawn unprecedented attention on the role of universities as
important source of innovations. Further, universities as knowledge generators and as an
important link to innovations with industry are given special emphasis in science,
technology and innovation policies (Turpin and Krishna, 2007; OEeD, 1997). In the light
of this the study reviews relevant perspectives and propositions to construct a theoretical
framework for the exploration of IITs.
95
,
3.2 Relevant Theoretical Concepts and Perspectives126
Looking at the broad approaches to address the Issues of academia-industry
interaction principally in the context of knowledge generation and transfer, there are three
important conceptual theoretical frameworks namely 'National Systems of Innovation'
(NSI); New Production of Knowledge or the 'Mode 2'; and 'Triple Helix,I27. Each of
these theoretical frameworks emphasise the importance of greater bonding between
academia and other institutional actors in the system. The NSI, 'Mode 2" and 'triple
helix' frameworks for conceptualizing the role of the research university within the
innovation processes of knowledge-based economies emphasize the importance of strong
links between universities and other institutional actors in these (read industrial)
economies (Mowery and Sampat, 2004). Even though these frameworks are used to
construct a theoretical perspective, the 'triple helix~~~ework seems t? "~e direCtl~
relevant for this study. This framework is pertinent because 'triple helix' observes
academic institutions to be playing a dominant role in the innovation system and in this
study we are studying the IITs as a representative set of academic research institutes (in
science and engineering) in India.
'Triple helix' has evolved gradually from a simple understanding of university
industry 'double helix' to trilateral reciprocal relationships between academia, industry
and government and lately to a more intricate adaptation of innovation and· sustainability
as 'triple helix twins' working together as a dynamic yin/yang pair that advance
sustainable economic and social development128• The NSI framework emphasizes how
innovations are introduced and spread inthe context of a country and attempts to explain
as to why national economies differ. To a certain extent, it also explains why certain actors
are important to the overall dynamism in the system of innovation. The New Production oj
Knowledge (Gibbons et aI., 1994) explain two distinct ways in which knowledge is
126 This study uses the terms 'framework', 'model', 'concept' and 'perspectives' in a somewhat synonymous mode even though they can be analysed and defined separately. In There are other noteworthy frameworks especially in terms of explaining the enhanced role of knowledge in economy and society, which basically focus on reorganisation of university-industry-govemment relationships-namely "research systems in transition" (Cozzens et ai., 1990; Ziman, 1994) or the "post modem research system" (Rip and Van der Meulen, 1996 as cited in Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). 118 For details see upcoming sections; Etzkowitz and Zhou (2006)
96
produced: 'Mode I' and 'Mode 2'. In 'Mode 1', knowledge is generated in an autonomous
university: in self-defined and self-sustained scientific nisciplines and specialities, and is
governed by peer group scientists who have a say in telling what constitutes science and
truth and what doe/to Here according to some experts academia-indus~ry interface is
non-existentI29• In case of 'Mode 2', knowledge particularly in science is characterised by
interdisciRlinarity and plurality and is no longer produced only in university settings but is ~ _ .. _----- ...,/"
also found increasingly in many different loci, like government laboratories,' industries
and other think-tanks and that it tends to be produced in context of application. It is
extremely important to note the prediction about universities in the new mode of
knowledge production where the authors say "the universities in particular will comprise
of only a part, perhaps only a small part of the knowledge producing sector" (Gibbons et
al., 1994: 85)J30.
The three conceptual frameworks operating in a selection environment that largely
reflects· the neo-liberal economic order, have addressed the important role of academia in the
system of innovation. The NSI concept has lately emphasised the significant role of
universities in the national systems of innovation even though the focus ofNSI has been on
firms l3l. This is evident from Lundvall (2002: 9), drawing upon Nelson's (1993)
observation of Universities being widely cited as a critical institutional actor in national , innovation systems, when he says that "the universities have become more directly involved
in market-driven processes and more exposed to competition from other producers of
knowledge ..... universities now have 'a third task' with focus on their direct contribution to
a more dynamic deVelopment of the business sector". In 'Mode 2', even though the
prediction of Gibbons et aL (1994: 85) which we mentioned in the above paragraph, on the
diminishing role of universities, needs to be questionedPthere has been a conscious effort to
re-Iook at the role of universities in a distributed and diverse knowledge production system.
1~9 See Shinn (2002) 130 Diversification of loci of scientific production is empirically shown by Hicks and Katz (1996), who emphasise the growth of non-university research. But Godin and Gingras (2000) note the diversification and decline of academic institutions as two ditTerent things and opine that one cannot infer the lauer from the former as is implicitly done by Gibbons et al. rather they show that far from declining, university research is stable, and even growing. Academic institution is still at the heart of the system of knowledge production and various actors rely heavily on their expertise and knowledge. 131 In LundvaIr s view (1988, 1992), the role of demand and supply, i.e. market forces are important in determining the rate and direction of the process of innovation and firms are largely the carriers of innovation process.
97
This is observed in Gibbons (1998: 36) where he says that "the academic institutions
engaged in research will be able to synthesise collaboration and use of shared resources into
the heart of their value system. However to achieve this, a substantial re-organisation in
academic institutions will be required". 'Mode 2' is seen to focus more on the existing
network of knowledge disciplines, industries and national governments. According to
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: lIS), 'Mode 2' is characterized as an outcome and
should be considered as an emergent system which essentially means that it builds its hyper
network on the existing network 132. In 'triple helix', the privileged actor among others
(industry and government) is university. As per Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: 109), the
underlying model of 'triple helix' assumes an analytically different approach from the
national system of innovation (NSI) which considers the firm as having the leading role in
innovation 133, and from the 'Triangle' model of Sabato (1975), in which government is
privileged. Before we address the important role of academia as one of the main actors of
innovation system drawn from all these three networks, it is appropriate to briefly review
what these frameworks mean, and discuss some important features noted by leading experts.
3.2.1 National Systems of Innovation
A national system of innovation (NSI) has been defined by Freeman (1987) as " ...
the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and
interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies", while Lundvall (1992)
defines NSI as "... the elements and relationships which interact in the production,
diffusion and use of new, and economically useful, knowledge ... and are either located
within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state.". Nelson (1993) defines NSI as " ... a
set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative performance of national
firms". According to Patel and Pavitt (1994), NSI is constituted by " .. .the national
institutions, their incentive structures and their competencies, that determine the rate and
132 Also see Weingart, 1997; Godin, 1998 133 In neoclassical economics wherein the focus is on markets as networks in tenos of input/output relations among individual agents; focus of analysis by evolutionary economists has changed to firms as the specific and bounded carriers of an innovation process. The dominant view for NSI refers to the role of demand and supply i.e. market forces in detenoining the rate and .direction of process of innovation (as quoted in Freeman, 1982: 211). Since Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: 115) observed that innovation systems need to be considered as dynamics of change in systems of both production and distribution, they tried to explain that by bringing in government as a third sphere where trilateral networks and hybrid organisations (formed as a result of such network) are created, and social and economic crises could be addressed.
98
direction of technological learning (or the volume and composition of change generating
activities) in a country,,134
The concept of NSI is based on the assumption that understanding the linkages
. among the actors involved in innovation is the key to improving technology
performanceI35• Innovation and technical progress are the result of a complex set of
relationships among actors producing, distributing and applying various kinds of
knowledge (OECD, 1997). According to the studies undertaken, the innovative
performance of a nation depends largely on how the involved actors relate to each other as
elements of a collective system of knowledge creation and its usage. Actors involved in
innovation are primarily private enterprises, public research organisations, academic
institutes and the people within them. The linkages can take the form of joint research,
personnel exchanges, cross-patenting, joint publications and a variety of other channels.
In the early stages of NSI, Lundvall and Christensen (1999), citing Nelson (1988),
noted that the US-approach linked the NSI concept mainly to hi tech- industries and put
the interaction between firms, the university system and national technology policy at the
centre of the analysis. However, Freeman (1987) introduced a broader perspective that
took into account national specificities in the organization of firms, where he emphasised,
for instance, how Japanese firms increasingly used 'the factory as a laboratory'. In
Freeman's discussion of Japan, the key institutions he included were: government policy,
corporate R&D, the education and training system, and the structure of industryl36. The
'Aalborg approach' (Lundvall, 1985; Andersen & Lundvall, 1988) was inspired by the
analysis of national production systems pursued by the French structuralist school in ,-,
Grenoble. Here the production system was the basis of national systems of innovation and
it also emphasised on the institutional dimension137• However, Porter (1990) brought in
134 As per definitions in (OECD, 1997) 135 As per Lundvall (1992), a national system of innovation is constituted by institutions and economic structures affecting the rate and direction of technological change in the society .. .it must, for example include not only the system of technology diffusion and R&D system but also institutions and factors determining how new technology affect productivity and economic growth 136 Also see studies in the context of understanding the innovation systems in Japan: Freeman (1987), Odagiri and Goto (1996); Kneller (1999) 137 Definition of institutions is taken from Johnson (1988) theoretically either as nonns and rules or as materialised in the fonn of organisations
99
regimes of competition as important dimension of national systems wherein some of his
crucial ideas were inherent in the innovation system concept particularly on vertical
interaction and innovation as an interactive process that surface in his analysis of
industrial clusters. Lundvall and Christensen (1999) however focused on production and
human resource development system. The NSI-concept also gained much currency
through the publication edited by Freeman and Lundvall (1988) on small countries, in the
edited book on technic~l change and economic theory with contributions from Freeman,
Nelson, Lundvall and Pelikan (Dosi et aI., 1988) and later on through three books edited
by Lundvall (1992), Nelson (1993) and Edquist (1997)138. In Nelson's edited volume, the
innovation systems were studied in fifteen countries where it suggested that NSI is shaped
by factors such as size and resource endowments effecting comparative advantage at a
basic level. Nelson (1993: 508) also says that NSI tends to reflect conscious decisions to
develop and sustain economic strength in certain areas, that is, it builds and shapes
comparative advantage.
The systemic characteristic of innovation at other levels of the economy is evident
from the literature on 'regional systems of innovation' that has grown rapidly since the
middle of the nineties (Cooke, 1996; Malmberg and Maskell, 1997) and on the concept of
'sectoral systems of innovation' by Franco Malerba and colleagues (Breschi and Malerba,
1997 and Malerba, 2002).
The study of innovation systems and its application to developing countries is
recent and critical attempts are being made to evaluate performance of developing and
newly industrialized countries (See Kim, 1993; Krishnan, 2003, Gu, 1999; Sarma, 2003;
Abrol, 2003; Nath, 2003; Wong, 1996; Patrapong, 2002).
1}8 There have been quite a few critiques of the NSI framework, for instance, Edquist (1997:14), notes the systems of innovation approach is about the determinants of innovations, and not about their consequences (in terms of growth, quantity of employment, working conditions, etc). Further the functional boundaries of the systems are very vaguely defined. Neither are relations between variables described in a rigorous manner. Because of this, the system of innovation approach does not deserve the status of a 'theory' of innovation, but must rather be called a conceptual framework (Edquist 1997: 28-29). The other problem associated with system of innovation approach as per Edquist (1997) is that it partly neglects other kinds of learning than innovation processes such as R&D, learning-by-doing, learning-by-using and learning-by-interacting. This approach to a large extent neglects learning in the form of education which has been ignored by other researchers except Bengt-Ake Lundvall.
100
3.2.1.1 Academia as a Significant Actor in Innovation System
The literature on national innovation systems emphasizes the importance of strong
linkages among the various actors in improving national innovative and competitive
performance, and this emphasis (although addressed recently) applies in particular to
universities within national innovation systems. Nelson (1993) notes that universities are
being widely cited as a critical institutional actor in national innovation systems. Nelson
(1993: 11) observes that " ... universities play an extremely important role in technical
advance, not only as places where industrial scientists and engineers are trained, but as
source of research findings and techniques of considerable relevance to technical advance
in industry".
The importance of academic research institutions gammg recognition m having a
significant place in the national systems of innovation has been due to two factors. The
primary reason seems obvious that academic research has the potential to contribute to
innovation system in the form of technological innovations, new knowledge, novel
products, services etc. In addition to teaching and research the universities now have 'a
third task' with focus on their direct contribution to a more dynamic development of the
business sector (Lundvall, 2002). The other reason is more due to the external pressures in
the form of declining government monetary support, which allow academic institutions to
capitalise on their research and other intellectual assets. There are numerous evidences
that show such state of affairs. Cohen et aI., (1998) elucidates the situation of American
public research academic institutions, whilst Slaughter and Leslie (1997) explain the
situation in UK, USA, and Australia. Universities throughout the OECD also have been
affected by tighter constraints on public funding since 1970. Faced with slower growth in
overall public funding, increased competition for research funding, and continuing cost
pressures within their operating budgets during the past two decades, at least some
universities have become more aggressive and 'entrepreneurial' in seeking new sources of
funding (Mowery and Sampat, 2004).
101
Lundvall (2002) observes that the universities have become more directly involved
in market-driven processes and more exposed to competition from other producers of
knowledge. This, according to him, is occurring in a situation where knowledge
production is characterised by increases in the degree of internationalisation and
networking. He further elucidates that as universities open themselves up; there is a need
for changes in the institutional framework to ensure that the long-term, creative and
critical aspects of academic research can survive. But for him, it becomes important also
to consider the ethical and social dimension of universities' knowledge production in
order to support the long-term viability of the learning economy and that merely exposing
the universities to market processes is not tenable, neither for university nor for society:
This concern is parallel to several others (see Nelson, 2004; Lee, 1996; Bok, 1982, 1990;
Geiger, 1993). Lundvall, thus suggests the need for a strategy of diversification and
differentiation of knowledge production, both internally, within university, and between
different kinds of organisations engaged in knowledge production. This, according to him,
might be the only way to ensure simultaneous interaction with and rapid adaptation to the
surrounding environment on the one hand and the further development of the university's
classical responsibility as a respected 'central bank of reliable knowledge' on the other
hand.
Mowery and Sampat (2004) also observe that rather than 'ivory towers' devoted to
the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a growing number of industrial-economy and
deVeloping-economy governments seek to use universities as instruments for knowledge
based economic development and change. In case of Japan (Odagiri, 1999) argues that
universities did play an important role in Japan's industrial and technological development
since the Meiji Restoration of 1867. More recent works in this context are from Kondo
(2004); Sakamoto and Kondo (2004). In the case of other Asian countries there are studies
from Wong Poh Kam (1996); Sharif and Baark (2005) and Kim (1993) among others.
Sharif and Baark (2005) argue that the university sector is likely to be the main public
actor in the innovation system, even if current initiatives are likely to increase the number
of government-sponsored research institutes serving specific sectors.
102
With academic institutions making an impact in the national systems of
innovation, it is important to know and understand the kind of role they play, the factors
on which their role differ and how crucial has this role been in different countries.
Although universities fulfil broadly similar functions in the innovation systems of most
industrial and industrializing economies, the importance of their role varies considerably,
and is influenced by the structure of domestic industry, the size and structure of other
publicly funded research performers, and numerous factors. Universities play
important roles in the "knowledge-based" economies of modem industrial and
industrializing states as sources of trained "knowledge workers" and ideas flowing from
both basic and more applied research activities (Mowery and Sampat, 2004). The limited
studies that have been done show that in the present times, the universities are expected to
contribute directly to the creation of new products and services particularly in the field of
biotechnology, and related life science fields, where there has been a dramatic shortening
of the time from scientific breakthrough to commercial use. Similar but somewhat less
dramatic changes have taken place in the fields of software and communication
technologies. New developments in the university .. industry relationships in these fields in
the US have increased the expectations to the contribution of European universities. For
universities to be direct contributors, to economy, there have to be large number of
changes in the university system in India (Ananth, 2006)139. He further notes that industry
supported research is almost 40 per cent in the US as compared to India. lIT is as good an
example as any and research support from industry is about 10 to 15 per cent but it is
increasing.
Mowery and Sampat (2004) however place a caveat that conventional (and,
perhaps, evolutionary) economic approaches to the analysis of institutions are very
difficult to apply to universities, for two main reasons. First, because inter-university
'competition' has been limited in most national systems of higher education barring US
and UK and secondly because analyzing universities as economic institutions requires
some definition of the objectives pursued by individual universities. They further observe
that even if academic institutions, mostly in developed countries, have recently shown
139 Ananth (2006) also observes the need for public-private partnership (PPP) models and improving infrastructure.
103
their influence on the innovation system, there are not many stu~ies that give us a fair
understanding of the typical role of academic institutions in NSI. The development of
useful theoretical or conceptual tools or models for analyzing universities as economic or
other institutions within knowledge-based economies is seriously hampered by the lack of
data on the roles of universities that enable comparisons across time or across national
innovation systems.
Thus we see that universities world over are seen as instruments for knowledge
based economic development and change, they are getting directly involved in market
driven processes, they are getting more exposed to competition from other producers of
knowledge and are seen to contribute directly to the creation of new products and services.
In other words, universities are increasingly seen as a significant actor in the national
system of innovation.
IITs in this context, we presume, are putting a strong foothold in creating a
knowledge research base that contributes to the innovation system. IITs as such in recent
years have come to playa significant part in the Indian innovation system. They are seen
as frontiers of science based innovations pushing them towards enterprising institutions to
be human capital provider and seed-bed of new firms. The presumption draws largely _ ,
from the current jimctioning of IITs which have a greater bearing on the historical ...---- - - ,. - -- - _.
developments _in IITs. This also implies that the adoption of MIT model. its typical .-------- .-
characteristics, and assistance of four nations have a notable role in supplementing the
IITs as an important actor in India's innovation system 140.
3.2.2 The New Production of Knowledge: 'Mode l' & 'Mode 2'
The second perspective in S&T policy studies that has come into sharp focus in the
last decade and half is that of Gibbons et al. (1994): New Production of Knowledge. The
authors explain two modes of knowledge production: "Mode l' and 'Mode 2'. In 'Mode
1', academia revolves around an autonomous university, self defined and self sustained
scientific disciplines and specialities, and the determination by specific peers of what does
140 Adoption of 'MIT model' by the liT system, their characteristics and features have been discussed in chapter 2.
104
and does not constitute science and truth. In 'Mode 2' knowledge is generated in the
context of application where industry plays an important role. The knowledge production
in 'Moue 2' is the outcome of a process in which supply and demand factors can be said to
operate, but the sources of supply are increasingly diverse, as are the demands for
differentiated forms of specialised knowledge and it is these processes or markets that
specify what is meant by context of application (1994: 4). The concept given by Gibbons
and his co-authors gained importance when the matter of expansion of higher education,
its massification and appropriation caught attention. This implied that with the spreading
out of higher education, the number of potential sites where knowledge was being
produced or where recognisably competent research was being performed also increased.
More simplistically, the mode of production that has the characteristics of disciplinary
research institutionalised largely in universities is termed as 'Mode 1', while 'Mode 2' is
characterised by transdisciplinari~y and institutionalisedcjn_a_Il19re_h<;J~XQge~o~_and
flexible sociall/distributed system (Gib!>ons, 1998). Even though Gibbons et al. (1994: 3)
~learly distinguish between two modes of knowledge production, elucidating that while
'Mode-I' is disciplinary, characterised by homogeneity, is organisationally hierarchical
and tends to preserve its form; 'Mode 2' is transdisciplinary and is characterised by
heterogeneity" . .Qrganisationally is more heterar~hicaLand_is_transient (see Table 3.1). ,------- ----------------Within 'Mode I' new knowledge was produced primarily through disciplinary research
mainly in universities and academic research institutes. Such knowledge usually had
limited connection to societal requirements (Schmidt, 2003). According to Gibbons (1998:
31) scientific and technological knowledge production are presently pursued not only in
universities but also in industry and government laboratories, think tanks, research
institutions, and consultancy firms etc. The emergence of 'Mode 2' is believed to be more
profound and calls into question the adequacy of familiar knowledge producing
institutions, whether universities, government research establishments, or corporate
laboratories (Gibbons et aI., 1994: 1). Thus according to the authors, 'Mode 2' is more"
socially accountable and reflexive by way of having wider, more temporary and
heterogeneous set of practitioners collaborating on a problem defined in a specific and
localised context.
105
Table 3.1: The Characteristics of Mode 1 and Mode 2
MODEl MODE 2 Knowledge is generated in an autonomous Knowledge is no longer produced only in university university settings but is also found increasingly in many
different loci, like government laboratories, industries and other think-tanks
Knowledge is produced in self-defined and self- Knowledge particularly in science is characterised by sustained scientific disciplines and specialities. interdisciplinarity (or transdisciplinarity), and 'Mode l' is disciplinary, characterised by plurality. 'Mode 2' is characterised by heterogeneity, homogeneity, is organisationally hierarchical and is organisationally more heterarchical and is transient tends to preserve its form. 'Mode l' is governed by peer group scientists who Knowledge is institutionalised in a more have a say in telling what constitutes science and heterogeneous and flexible socially distributed truth and what does not system Academia-industry interface is non-existent Knowledge tends to be produced in context of (Shinn, 2002) application; movement across established categories,
greater permeability of institutional boundaries, and a greater blurring of professional identities
Source: Compiled from Gibbons et al. (1994); Gibbons (1998, 2003)
. In his later contribution, Gibbons (2003) argues that the prevailing social contract between
society and science has been structured primarily on the basis of knowledge creation,
education and training. Universities have been established to undertake research and
teaching. They are in the business of knowledg~ cr:~~tion_and_the_tQmsf~he t
knowledge through ed~ation. From public funds available, universities generate new -knowledge in the form of scientific discoveries and educate people in the theories that
form the basis of those discoveries who in tum interpret and apply that knowledge in
practical situations such as in corporate or public research and development activities.
This is essentially a mode 1 orientation.
Building on mode 2 analysis, Gibbons (2003) goes further and argues that the separation
between the major institutions of society have b~~_ to bre~_.gown. He argues, for
example: "The once clear lines of demarcation between government, industries and the
universities and the technology of industry, between basic research, applied research and
product development, between careers in academia and those in industlY seem no longer
to apply. Instead there is a movement across established categories, greater permeability
of institutional boundaries, greater blurring of professional identities, and greater
diversity of career patterns. In some, major institutions of society have been transgressed
106
as institutions have crossed on to one another's terrain. In this, science has been, both
invading, but also invaded by countless demands from society" 14 I / ,,./''''-
Here one draws similarities with the 'triple helix' framework where reciprocal and
reflexive relationships among the three spheres of academia, industry and government
shape a conducive environment for innovations to occur. The difference however appears
to be in the role of academic research institutions. The key role of universities is to
advance knowledge and thus teaching and research functions become much more
significant unlike 'triple helix' where contributing to economic development is considered
equally important.
'Mode 2' framework claimed a new paradigm shift for science. According to the
authors, in view of the changing context and socialisation of knowledge, the process of
knowledge production and conduct of research has also changed fundamentally. Nowotny
et al. (2001) in Re-thinking Science took the argument of Gibbons et al. (1994) further
suggesting that the pattern of industrial research responsibilities _~etwe~n i~dust!Y and
government underwent substaIrtial change. This change was visible in industry -------------- -" --invol~ment in the development of national research programmes to ensure a prominent
place in national economic objectives. According to Shinn (2002: 600), the argument is
that the way in which scientific knowledge, technical practises, industry, education and
society at large are organized and function today lies in sharp contrast with the
relationships in earlier times. Shinn (2002) further says that by contrast, 'Mode 2'
knowledge production perceives the weakening or collapse of the modern university, the
disappearance of scientific disciplines and the atrophy of peer control over the direction
and content of research programmes. 'Mode 2' science is characterised by
interdisciplinarity, by the fluent movement of short tenn task force teams of experts to
problem domains and by the primacy of social and economic problems in establishing
what spheres of knowledge should be developed.
As per Shinn (2002), New Production of Knowledge lacks the methodological
motor that is necessary to drive any research programme forward. This approach lacks a
141 As quoted in Howard (2004: 20)
107
theoretical referent. Shinn (2002: 603) goes to the extent of saying that "the nucleus of
New Production of Knowledge is located in a single voiume, in which are expressed
claims about the demise of universities, scientific disciplines and academic laboratories
and rise in interdisciplinarity, economically and socially relevant research themes, and the
appearance of perpetually fluid business linked research task forces in the framework of a
new kind of socially useful epistemology". Here Shinn (2002: 600) also argues that there
is allegedly no interaction between academia and industry. One should however note that
much of these criticisms were apparently addressed later by Gibbons (1998, 2003). The
issue of source of new knowledge (which is developed in the context of application) has
remained in the core of the discussion.
It has been widely appreciated that specialist knowledge which is new be it in the
form of technological innovation or know-how is often a key factor in determining a
firm's comparative advantage. It is argued that specialised knowledge comes at a premium
but acquiring it is difficult and often exceptionally expensive for individual firms to
replicate in its entirety in-house. Thus the firms resort to collaborative arrangements that
involve academia, government and other firms. As it is also understood that markets are
dynamic and knowledge plays a crucial role, the parallel expansion in the numbers of
knowledge producers on the supply side and the expansion of the need for specialised
knowledge on the demand side are creating the conditions for the emergence of a new
mode of knowledge production. Thus according to Gibbons et aL (1994), the new mode
has implications for all kinds of institutions-whether academic institutions, government
research organisations or industrial laboratories-all those who have a stake in knowledge
production. The emergence of markets for specialised knowledge implies that for each
institution type, the strategies are different although the ways and degree of adopting
changes in order to accommodate or create new knowledge may vary. Gibbons (1998: 33)
observes that some firms have taken on the organisational attributes of universities.
The above discussion possibly gives an inkling that 'Mode 2' is in contrast with
'Mode I', but Gibbons clarifies that the former is an offshoot of the latter (1998: 33). He
states that 'Mode 2' is not supplanting but rather is supplementing 'Mode 1'. Though
108
some of the cognitive and social norms typical to 'Mode 2' contrasts sharply with deeply
held beliefs about how reliable theoretical and practical knowledge are generated, Gibbons
elucidates that they should not for that reason be regarded as either superior or inferior to
those operating in 'Mode l' rather they simply stand unlike.
However, for 'Mode 2' to realize a dominant place in the knowledge production
system, the proponents of this concept observe that there are several challenges before it.
The government would have to create national institutions that would require them to be
de-centred, to be made more permeable. The policies from government would promote
change in this direction. The policy approach will require an integration of education,
science, technology, and competition policies into a comprehensive innovation policy
which is sensitive to the fact that knowledge production is socially distributedl42• Ziman
(2000) argues that Mode 2 (as Mode I) may also include traditional scientific values.
Howard (2004) differentiates the two modes of production as he brings the notion of
quality control. While quality control in 'Mode l' knowledge production is seen as
supporting a quest for truth, in "Mode 2', quality control may be seen as supporting a
quest for performance, outcomes and results.
There are researchers who claim that there is little evidence that 'Mode 2' as a
concept is new (see David et al. 1999). They place their debate on their understanding that
'Mode 2' has always existed and is a complement to publicly funded research although the
intensity of knowledge being produced at different sites has intensified particularly during
the 1990S143•
3.2.2.2 Academic Institutions in 'Mode 2'
The 'Mode l' gave much more importance to academic institutions wherein
Gibbons (2003) specifically observe that universities are in the business of knowledge
creation and the transfer of the knowledge through education. The publicly funded
141 According to Gibbons (1999), in Europe, particularly, national policies that will enhance the potential of national institutions need to be developed in concert with those of the European Union 143 To support this Godin & Gingras (2000) observe that the share of Mode I in knowledge production has increased.
109
universities generate new knowledge in the form of scientific discoveries and educate
people in the theories that fonn the basis of those discoveries who in turn interpret and
apply that knowledge in practical situations. The emergence of a new knowledge
production system in the fonn of 'Mode 2' has implications for organisation of both
teaching and research functions within higher education institutions. According to
Gibbons (1998: 35), " ... perhaps the most difficult adjustments that universities will have
to make derive from the fact that knowledge production is becoming less and less a self
contained activity". He says that because of the complexity of the questions that are
addressed and the costs involved, research is increasingly getting dependent on sharing of
resources whether financial, intellectual or physical with a broad range of institutions, not
only with other academic institutions. The academic institutions engaged in research will
be able to synthesise collaboration and use of shared resources into the heart of their value
system. However to achieve this, a substantial re-organisation in academic institutions wifl
be required. But to probe further, would this mean that there will be a shift from a culture
of science to a culture of research and will this culture of research, which presumably will
be oriented towards application and problem solving, will have its own structural
organisational imperative?J44 The author believes that the universities big or small are now
confronted with the challenge of how to accommodate themselves to the emergence of
distributed knowledge production system. In the contemporary period, leading edge
research has become more participatory and the solution for which would be expected
from teams comprising of several experts in different organisations.
'Mode 2' concept assuredly is consistent with some characteristics of modern
innovation systems, notably the increased inter-institutional collaboration that has been
remarked upon by numerous scholars. But· this concept's claims that the sources of
knowledge within modern innovation systems have become more diverse do not imply
any decline in the role of universities as fundamental research centres. Studies like Hicks
and Hamilton (1999) and Howard (2004) support the 'Mode 2' assertion that cross
institutional collaboration and diversification in knowledge sources have grown, but at the
144 If we look at the work of Latour (1998), where he distinguishes the culture of science with culture of research, we tend to locate the above discussion in seeking answer to the question - whether a culture of research is better than a culture of science in serving the needs of developing societies. This issue however is not the focus of this thesis.
110
same time studies for instance Mowery and Sampat (2004); Godin and Gingras (2000)
indicate no such decline in the role of universities. Implications of all these issues remain
ambiguous as it remains unclear if 'Mode l' is substituted by 'Mode 2' or if they co-exist.
As per Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: 116), the so called 'Mode 2' is not new; it is the
original format of science before its academic institutionalisation in the 19th century.
'Mode 2' represents the material base of science, how it actually operates. The authors
further explicate that 'Mode 2' is a construct, built upon that base in order to justify
autonomy for science, especially in an earlier era when it was a fragile institution and
needed all the help it could get.
From the above discussion and understanding of 'Mode 2' framework, it is
observed that the once clear lines of demarcation between government, industries and the
universities and the technology of industry, between basic research, applied research and
product development, seem no longer to apply and instead there is a movement across
established categories, with greater permeability of institutional boundaries and greater
blurring of professional identities~e also understand that knowledge plays a crucial role
in a dynamic market environment. With parallel expansion in the numbers of knowledge
producers on the supply side and the expansion of need for specialised knowledge on the
demand side, the new mode of knowledge production has implications for all kinds of
institutions-whether academic institutions, government research organisations or
industrial laboratories-all those who have a stake in knowledge production. For
universities engaged in research, the willingness to synthesise collaboration and use of
shared resources will require substantial re-organisation within them. The challenge before
universities will be to figure out how to accommodate them to the emergence of
distributed knowledge production system . . For fITs, in this context, the question that we ask is whether the knowledge
production in 'Mode 1 ' has been eclipsed by the new mode 'Mode 2' in all the five fITs?
Whether knowledge produced in fITs is characterised by interdisciplinarity and plurality
and if it is transient? If the knowledge that is being produced in fITs is done in the context
of application?
III
3.2.3 The Triple Helix Framework
Over the last decade, 'triple helix' has emerged as a theoretical perspective in the
context of changing structure of universities and it is projected as one of the important
strategies of innovation studies. In the 'triple helix' framework the interaction among
university-industry-government is claimed to be the key to improving the conditions for
innovation in a knowledge-based society. In 'triple helix', industry is a member as the
locus of production; government as the source of contractual relations that guarantee
stable interactions and exchange; and university as a source of new knowledge and
technology. Although the 'triple helix' originated as a model of discontinuous innovation
in the U.S., based on networking among institutional spheres, it has also been utilized to
integrate disconnected resources in collapsed innovation systems and to enhance
incremental innovation in developing countries (Etzkowitz, 2003). The construction of a
'triple helix' includes the creation of institutions for the production and transmission of
knowledge; a consensus building process through which potential partners come together
to collectively identify niches and design organizational mechanisms to realize an
innovation strategy.
Thf,! growing literature on 'triple helix' framework places university as the
knowledge producing and disseminating institution, that plays a central role in innovation,
more so in technological innovationl45• As per Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (various years),
'triple helix' thesis holds that university is increasingly central to discontinuous innovation
in knowledge based societies, superseding the firm as the primary source of future
economic and social development. 'Triple Helix' framework contends that university can
play an enhanced role in innovation and that this would increasingly be in the case of
knowledge based societies and more specifically in those industries where innovation is
more knowledge based (Etzkowitz & Leydesdroff, 2000). The Triple Helix argument is
that "as knowledge becomes an increasingly important part of innovation. the university
145 Triple He!!x conferences are held once every other year at different places across the globe on different themes. First conference was in 1996 at Amsterdam; second one at Purchase, New York in 1998 followed by Rio-de·Janeiro in 2000. Fourth in Copenhagen & Lund in 2002, fifth at Turin, Italy in 2005; sixth in 2007 at Singapore, while seventh is scheduled in 2009 at Glasgow.
112
as a knowledge producing and disseminating institution plays a larger role in industrial
innovation ... in a knowledge based economy, the university becomes a key element of the
innovation system both as human capital provider and seed-bed of new firms" (Etzkowitz
et al., 2000: 313)
The triple helix model comprises of three basic elements: (1) a more prominent
role for the university in innovation, on a par with industry and government in a
knowledge-based society; (2) a movement toward collaborative relationships among the
three major institutional spheres in which innovation policy is increasingly an outcome of
interactions among the spheres rather than a prescription from government or an internal
development within industry; (3) in addition to fulfilling their traditional functions, each
institutional sphere also "takes the role of the other" operating on a y-axis of their new
role as well as an x-axis of their traditional function. The triple helix model posits that
universities in transitional and developing countries take a leading role in catalysing
regional growth spaces (Etzkowitz, 2003).
Firms, academia and government each have their distinctive purpose and mission
and continue to perform their original functions. As they interact, each sphere is
transformed by 'taking the role of the other'. Government supports entrepreneurship
through chances in the regulatory environment, tax incentives and provision of public
venture capital. Academia is a source of firm-formation in addition to providing trained
persons and support to existing firms.
Rather than only serving as a source of new ideas for existing finns, universities
are combining their research and teaching capabilities in new formats to become a source
of new finn formation, especially in advanced areas of science and technology (Etzkowitz,
2003). Further, an industrial penumbra arises around universities as they become involved,
often in a leadership role, in regional coalitions for economic and social development.
Interaction among university-industry-government is the source of the origin and/or
development of incubator movements, interdisciplinary research centres and venture
capital, whether private, public or social (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006). However with the
passage of time and subsequent changes in the university-industry and government
113
systems, the Triple Helix thesis has also gradually transformed. For instance the dqminant
role of academia in achieving innovation is now seen to accommodate such an approach
and intensity wherein even industry or government can take the lead to attain innovation
(Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006: 79).
The 'triple helix' model contends that as innovation moves outside of a single
organization, lateral relationships across boundaries, rather. than hierarchical bureaucratic
structures, become more important 1 46. As per Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: 113),
innovation systems and the relationships among them are apparent at the organisational,
local, regional, national and multinational levels. The interacting sub-dynamics, that is,
specific operations like markets and technological innovations are continuously
reconstructed yet differently at different levels. The sub-dynamics and the levels are also
reflexively reconstructed through discussions and negotiations in the triple helix. In order
to explain the observable reorganisations in university-industry-government· relations, one
needs to transform the sociological theories of institutional retention, re-combinatorial
innovation, and reflexive controls (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000: 112)147.
Emergence of Triple Helices
Triple Helix studies arose from analysis of the university-industry 'double helix'
and the realization that the government was an essential part of the innovation equation;
even when it was suppressed for ideological reasons or given too great a weight because
of political exigencies (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006). The authors observe that the topic
morphed from university-industry to university-industry-government relations a decade -----~ .
'ago, to t~ into account the predominant role of government in structuring these
relationships in some societies and its relative absence in others. It is worth mentioning
the claim as said in (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 2001) that the 'triple helix' model
improves on the 'national systems of innovation' model by declaring "governance" as a
variable since the different levels of government (European, national, regional, and local)
146 The discussions at the 4th Triple Helix conference focused on the mle of universities in shaping new innovation environments for both entrepreneurial initiatives and public participation. The thought behind is that formulation of public demand for technological innovations rriay hel;> to stimulate the transition to an increasingly knowledge based economv. 147 A Triple Helix where each strand relates to other two can be expected to develop an overlay of communications networks, and organisation among the helices.
114
can be studied in a coherent framework. Further, the 'triple helix' shares with 'Mode 2'a
focus on a dynamic overlay of negotiations and alliances between and among the
institutional carriers of the overlay.
Figure 3.1: An etatistic model of university-industry-government relations or TH-I, (reproduced
from Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000: Ill)
The 'triple helix' model for innovation emerges from different societal starting points but
converges to a common format (Etzkowitz, 2003). First there is Triple Helix- I (TH-I), in
which the state encompasses academia and industry and directs the relations between
them. This model was evident in the erstwhile Soviet Union, Eastern European socialist
countries as well as in France. Weaker versions of TH-I was found in many Latin
American countries and to some extent in Scandinavian countries such as Norway
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).
The TH-I model was a visible framework before the mid 20th century, as the
government played a dominant role in innovations. During the same time in the late
1960s, as a development strategy for countries with weak industrial sectors, an Argentine
physicist and science policy analyst, Jorge Sabato, developed a triadic innovation model in
which government was expected to take a leading role in promoting high-tech
development projects, especially in areas of national security, and bring together the
115
resources to realize objectives. Sabato later in his study (1975) and with Mackenzie
(1982), further elaborated that in his 'Triangle model', the universities typically played
only a supporting role, primarily in providing training to persons to work in the state
bureaucracies, other large organizations and traditional professions. Although during the
socialist era, research and production were formally linked by intemiediary organizations,
the focus of government was on quantity production, not qualitative innovation. Thus
mass production became popular despite the fact that the bureaucratic structures and
controls were an impediment to introduction of local inventions through technology
transfer (Etzkowitz, 2003). Despite having an inefficient system for organizing technical
change, the process of exchange was dominant across boundaries informally, taking place
laterally rather than going through the official planning process. From a stringent and
regulatory phase where government was powerful, the transition busted the hierarchical
structures to give way for government, industry and academic spheres as independent
entities or the TH-II.
At the time of former Soviet Union, SInce innovation was discouraged rather than
encouraged, TH-I is largely viewed as a failed developmental model (Etzkowitz, 2003).
The second Triple Helix or TH-II model comprises of separate institutional spheres where
government, university and industry operate apart from each otherl48•
Figure 3.2: A 'Iassiez-faire' model of university-industry-govemment relations (reproduced from
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000: Ill)
148 The linkages among the three spheres were supposed to behave in this manner in the US
116
TH-III consists of overlapping institutional spheres; each taking the role of the other and
with hybrid organizations emerging at the interfaces. In one form or another, most
countries and regions are trying to attain some form of TH-IU, with its university spin-off
firms, tri-Iateral initiatives for knowledge based economic development and strategic
alliances among firms, government laboratories and academic research groups.
Figure 3.3: The Triple Helix Model (TH-III)
Trilateral Networks & Hybrid Organizations
[reproduced from Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, (2000: 111)]
Graduating from TH-II, the third version of triple helix evolved after observing a
lot of development in the innovation system. According to Etzkowitz (2003), the ability to
advance within and across technological paradigms might be conceptualised as occurring
within three 'growth spaces': knowledge, consensus and innovation. Here he explains that
knowledge space provides the epistemological source for technological development;
consensus space denotes the process of getting relevant actors to work together, while
innovation space indicates an organisational invention that can enhance the development
process.
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000: Ill) observed that TH-lII IS generating a
knowledge infrastructure in terms of overlapping institutional spheres, with each taking
the role of the other and with hybrid organisations emerging at the interfaces (see figure
117
3.3). Such reciprocal relationships among the three entities are claimed to be instrumental
in creating and strengthening the innovative capacity of a country and contributing to its
economic development. The 'triple helix' model can be understood in terms of the role of
respective institutional spheres where entrepreneurial university acts as a push force
through knowledge and technology transfer, state plays the role of a combination of
pull/push through its regulatory activities and financing schemes, while industry acts as a
pull force to helix
Etzkowitz (2003) observes that the 'triple helix' of university-indus try-government
relations is emerging as a common format that transcends national boundaries. Such
format is seen in joint projects where strong interrelations subsist in hybrid formats seen to
embody elements in two or more institutional spheres whilst preserving relative autonomy
of their respective sphere. When we typically observe the development of hybrid
organisations such as incubators, interdisciplinary research centres and venture capital
firms whether private, public or social, the source of such formations lie in the interaction
among university-industry-govemment spheres. These organizational innovations are as
important to the flow of innovation as technical advance (Etzkowitz et al; 2005). Here we
draw parallel with such organisational as well as institutional formations in IITs that are
significant in nurturing innovations in India. However, we also need to note that such
hybrid organisations are not seen in India where IITs are one of the actors in the trilateral
network.
However, much criticism and genuine concerns came from different scholars with
respect to the structure of 'triple helix' framework suggesting missing links and actors in
the form of incorporating an additional sphere be it labour, venture capital, informal sector
or civil societyJ49. Nowotny et al. (2001) noted that ideally the role of citizens or in other
words, interaction with public as the fourth central actor, needs to be included in the
context of interplay between science and society. Etzkowitz and Zhou (2006) in response
to some of the criticisms elucidated that while in the 'triple helix' innovation model,
university-industry-govemment work together to achieve regional or national innovations
149 Much criticism came at the 5th Triple Helix Conference held at Turin, Italy when scholars like Giovanni Dosi, Paul David among others suggested changes. Similarly in the 6th Triple Helix C{)nference at Singapore, David Mowery, Charles David, Philippe Mustar, Venni Krishna among others debated on the appropriateness of the framework.
118
in science and technology, forming a relationship of mutual benefit among them; anyone
adapting this model can take the liberty to modify the analytical and normative
framework, to take local circumstances better into account. However, rather than adding a
fourth helix, it might be best to conceptualise 'triple helix' as a dual set of helixes or
'triple helix twins'. According to them, adding a fourth helix might cause the triadic
model to lose its creative dynamic but nevertheless an expanded concept is required to
incorporate a crucial missing dimension. To resolve this paradox, they proposed an
alternative university-public-government (yin) 'triple helix' as a complement to the
university-industry-government (yang) 'triple helix'. By creating a parallel interacting
axis, a critical element might be introduced into the model without losing the dynamic
properties of a tertius gaudens (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006:79)150. The complementary
templates of the 'triple helix' twins create a mechanism for reproduction and
transformation. The Yang 'triple helix' exemplifies the different forms of cooperative
arrangements among university-industry-government to induce innovation while the Yin
one of pUblic-university-:-government represents the dynamic of controversies over
technological innovations. The two helices operate in tandem. The university-industry
government 'triple helix' works to promote innovation and growth while the university
government-public one serves as a balance wheel to ensure that innovation and growth
take place in ways that will not be harmful to the environment and health. Hence
Etzkowitz and Zhou (2006) conceptualise that the interaction of the 'triple helix' twins
constitutes a social organisation that integrates a positive entrepreneurial dynamic into
civil society and caution that when helices are out of alignment, imbalances would occur.
Thus we observe that there has been a gradual shift in the 'triple helix' framework, right
from its conceptual development from a single to the most recent dual set of helices: the
'triple helix twins' of innovation and sustainability.
The 'triple helix'of university-industry-govemment relations is emerging as a
common format that transcends national boundaries. As this takes place there is a shift ,
from bi-Iateral to trilateral interactions from 'single' and 'double helixes' to university
industry-government joints projects like the land grant universities in the US, the research
ISO As per Etzkowitz and Zhou (2006: 82), Tertius galldells is the third person who takes advantage from a dispute between others or otherwise plays an intermediary role
119
schools program in Sweden and the incubator movement in Brazil. Whether starting from
statist or laissez faire regimes, the movement is to a midpoint of relative autonomy of
institutional spheres, on the one hand, and stronger interrelations and creation of new
hybrid formats embodying elements of two or more institutional spheres, on the other.
However, in order to analyse these developments and to guide the future growth of
relationships and interactions among the three entities, a new model of the relationship
among the institutional spheres and their internal transformation would be required. The
nature of such associations or linkages as suitable to local flavour and conditions is what . developing countries like India should look for in their pursuit of creating and nurturing
innovations. For the purpose of this study, the 'triple helix framework is being used and it I / is hypothesised that the university-industry-government related triple helix thesis may be~, partially applicable to the Indian context.
120
3.3 Modes of Knowledge Production
In its seminal years, the university's existence hinged upon the performance of
their first mission of production, preservation and propagation of knowledge and culture.
The incorporation of research into the agenda of the university apart from teaching,
constituted the first major shift in its ideology. As we have already discussed, Humboldt in
the 19th century, developed a new paradigm of university in Germany where not only
teaching, but also research, was performed. Humboldt's fundamental assumption was that
the university should be the place where Wissenchaft (fields of pure scholarly learning)
would be cultivated. The universities were considered as one of the best places to carry
out research. In 'Republic of Science', Polanyi (1962: 67) highlighted this: " ... the only
justification for the pursuit of scientific research in universities lies in the fact that the
universities provide an intimate communion for the formation of scientific opinion, free
from corrupting intrusions and distractions. For though scientific discoveries eventually
diffuse into all people's thinking, the general public cannot participate in the intellectual
milieu in which discoveries are made. Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its
pursuit. For such work the scientist needs a secluded place among like-minded colleagues
who keenly share his aims and sharply control his performances. The soil of academic
science must be exterritorial in order to secure its rule by scientific opinion (Polanyi 1962:
67)." Apart from university as an ideal place for research, Polanyi also argued for
autonomous government aided institutions which would have the freedom to set priorities
and decide on what was good science. The study by Bernal (1939) asked for strong
government intervention wherein allocation of funds to academic institutions would be
guided by weighing of social needs. Bush (1945) strongly advocated public funding of
science and supported basic research. In the post-World War II United States, a seminal
report Science - Endless Frontier (1945) by Vannevar Bush emphasized that innovation
starts with fundamental research as he proposed more funds to basic research J51• In other
words Bush was in a way advocating for the' linear model of innovation' w~ich postulates
151 Bush (1945: 18) uses the term basic research to be defined as --research perfonned without thought of practical ends"
121
that innovation starts with basic research, appends applied research and development and
ends with production and diffusion.
According to Godin (2005), the linear model of innovation is developed over time in three
steps: The first linked applied research to basic research, the second added experimental
development, and the third added production and diffusion. He further states that these
three steps· correspond in fact to three scientific communities and their successive entries
into the field of science studies and/or science policy, each with their own concepts. First
were natural scientists developing a rhetoric on basic research as the source for applied
research or technology; second were researchers from business schools studying industrial
management of research and development of technologies and the third were economists,
bringing forth the concept of innovation into the discipline.
There have been efforts to modify or replace the 'linear model' particularly with
respect to its impact. The alternative models suggest multiple feedback loops (Kline and
Rosenberg, 1985). There have been several critics of this model: considering them as
unsuccessful (see Rosenberg, 1994; Arimoto, 2002)
Kharbanda (1999) also opmes that while this 'linear model' had been quite
successful in the US (basing his argument on the lines of Vovakova, 1998: 210) this has
not met with much success in most of the developing countries including India and China.
While in India it was supplanted by an import substitution model during the 1960s and
1970s, which was only partially successful, in China the model operated in an ideological
environment where technology was considered as a public good which contradicted the
economics of innovation.
Thus academic institutions were promoted to carry out research in addition to their
teaching function. The universities responded to the developments and there were specific
studies undertaken on scientific communities. Bush (1945) argued for self-governing
scientific community, who could prioritise research activities and monitor their
orientation. Robert Merton (1973) in the form of CUDOS-communitarianism,
122
universalism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism-identified and laid out canons of
science for scientists. Merton had earlier also (1957) observed that the primary motivation
of university scientists is recognition within the scientific community. This to him comes
from publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at prestigious conferences, and
through the successful application and award of federal research grants. The knowledge
products that Merton talked about largely exist in an open space, accessible to all. The
above studies recognise science base as largely open, reigning and as the basis of
invention and innovation I52. Thus the universities were responsible for generating
knowledge which the welfare economists regarded as a public good, namely, one whose
value does not diminish as access increases (Samuelson, 1969). Economists often have
argued that keeping science open is the most effective policy for enabling the public to
draw practical benefits from it (Nelson, 2004). Open access permits many potential
inventors to work with new knowledge.
We find echoes of the above discussion in the vision statement of IITs indicated in
the Interim Report of Sarkar Committee (1946), and the findings of Nayudamma
Committee (1961) and Rama Rao Committee (2004). The priority is clearly on education
(teaching), followed by research and extension. Educational excellence is reflected in the
vision statements of all the IITs (see the vision at the time of establishment of IITs and the
vision in 2004 of the respective IITs in Appendix 3.1).
Getting into the specificities, we note that literature on modes of knowledge
production addresses multiple issues which involve different entities in the process: the
academic institutions as source of knowledge and their characteristics in terms of
organisation structure, personnel, culture etc; the knowledge products or objects of
transfer for instance publications, patents or other forms of IPR, scientific knowledge,
1;1 The more recent studies on recognition of 'open science' are by Nelson (1993,2004); (Pavitt, 1991, 1998, 2001) and Mowery and Nelson (1999). Ziman (1978) also notes that because the results of scientific research are laid in the public domain for testing and further development, the bulk of scientific knowledge accepted by the community is reliable.
123
technical know-how etc; and mutual knowledge facilitators like consulting, research
contracts, informal meetings, joint ventures etc. We discuss them in the next -section.
The sources of knowledge in this section are restricted to the involvement of ARIs
even though the 'Mode 2' institutions also comprise of industry in-house R&D,
government think tank organisations, national and private research laboratories. There are
several studies on institutional change and adaptation linked to economic and social
change (see Nelson, 1998; North, 1990; Cohen, Linda and Noll, 1998). Rahm et al. (1988)
examine the participation of university and government in terms of characteristics of their
respective research units to be involved in such knowledge production which have
commercial utility. Here they found out that involvement in knowledge production was
stronger for those research units who had diversity of research missions. The study by
Etzkowitz (1994), gives an account of the nature of faculty members who had an
entrepreneurial character. Based on the interviews conducted, Etzkowitz found that
considerable change in the norms of academic scientists and in institutional culture, led to
an environment which was much more conducive to industrially relevant work. The
establishment of new institutions on the foundation of embedded structures, culture and
given rules tend to redefine the relationships between involved institutions. An earlier
study by Lee (1996) involved interviews with faculty and administrators affianced in
academia-industry relations wherein he found strong support for faculty role in technology
based regional economic development and increasing faculty interaction with industry
scientists. The faculty were found to be less enthusiastic about business partnerships with
industry scientists.
The above discussion inspires the debate on why the academics are shifting their
research that is more industry oriented or in other words why there is a shift from basic to
applied research. Lee (1996) explains the development using two theories: the Social
Responsibility Theory (Bok, 1982, 1990; Geiger, 1993) and the Utility Maximization
Theory (Bell, 1993; Fairweather, 1989; Feller, 1990; Geiger, 1993). The Social
Responsibility Theory holds that the academics are engaged in the production of 'public
goods' and they have a social responsibility for national imperatives. Much of this we
124
have discussed in the previous sections (on the lines of 'Humboldtian Model' and 'Mode
1 '). The Utility Maximization Theory, on the other hand, links institutional behaviour to
the need for research money. It views the present academic reorientation essentially as a
strategy to maximize on institution's revenue streams. The shift in university system to the
model university, which is inclined towards the utility maximization view and has a role
in economic development, has several consequences. Not only it is a new academic
function but it also transforms the professorial role even at the level of the universe of
discourse that faculty make.
Having discussed knowledge production both as a 'public good' and as having
'utility value' for generating revenue, there are studies that focus on the challenges and
concerns that need to be critically addressed on the issue of intellectual property rights
(IPRs) in both the categories. Nelson (2004: 463) observes that the outputs of scientific
research almost never themselves are final products, or even close, but have their principal
use in further research, some of it aimed to advance the science farther, some to follow
leads that may enable a useful product or process to be found and developed. The concern
is not with patents on the outputs of scientific research that are directly useful or close to
that, so long as the scope of the patent is limited to that particular use. Rather the concern
is about not hindering the ability of the scientific community, both that part interested in
advancing the science farther. and that pillt interested in trying to '!.~~lulOwl~ll1~c In ihl!
search for u~t!h>J rnniuotl tQ Work frl!t!iy wilh ana from new scientific findings. The
advantage of conducting research in academia lies in the fact that by experimenting in
basic sciences, one can test the proposed benefits of the research outcome without
engaging in full-scale operations. Thus, strong science enables the process of designing
and inventing to be more productive and powerful than it would be were the science base
weaker (Nelson, 2004: 458). Faculty who have been seriously involved in such knowledge
production that have commercial potential, describe their technologies at a certain level of
generality and do not get specific for the fear of potential intellectual property rights that
could be given away (Etzkowitz, 1996). Earlier faculty would have been willing to be
more open or perhaps to disclose their knowledge to a company as a consultant for a small
fee, but now their interaction with industry is carefully calculated based upon the
125
expectation that their university wishes to market that knowledge and/or that the faculty
member might themselves wish to form a company based on that commercialisable
knowledge (Etzkowitz and Webster, 1998).
At a general level of understanding the mode of knowledge production in IITs is
more likely to be influenced by Humboldtian values of achieving teaching and research
excellence and promotion of open research publications rather than market driven
commercialization of research, even though the latter assumes considerable significance.
Historically speaking, which we discussed in the previous chapter, the underwriters of IIT
have promoted these important institutions of higher learning as a process of national
building towards achieving technological self-reliance. Advancing knowledge and greater
emphasis on excellence in science and engineering graduate teaching are in many ways
expression of this national building exercise.
In the context of IITs, we presume that despite the institutional and organisational
reforms, and increasing faculty interaction with industry personnel, many faculty and
researchers would be less enthusiastic about business partnerships with industry. This
could be reasoned in the notion that academic institutions as sources of knowledge have
deep rooted institutional values and responsibilities to their operational sphere. Another
reason could factor the not so high yielding commercial activities in academia owing to
consuming considerable time and often involving considerable risks. This discussion thus
raises a hypothesis that IITs recognise the importance of open science and scrutinise their
efforts to protect their knowledge assets. Thus, knowledge production in IITs is by and
large driven by research publications compared to patents. This orientation of knowledge
production is no way seen be to detrimental to the mode of knowledge transfer in IITs.
126
3.4 Modes of Knowledge TransferIS3
Knowledge or technology transfer as a concept is the movement of know-how,
technical knowledge, or technology from one organisational setting to another, further the
term is used to describe and analyse an astonishingly wide range of organisational and
institutional interactions involving some form of technology related exchange (Roessner,
in press as quoted in Bozeman, 2000). According to Sahal (1981), technology and
knowledge transfer are not separable-When a technological product is transferred or
diffused, the knowledge upon which its composition is based is also diffused. Without the
knowledge base the physical entity cannot be put to use, thus knowledge base is inherent
not ancillary.
In academic research institutes, sponsored research and industrial consultancy are
among the most important channels for knowledge transfer. There are literary
contributions on knowing the impact of knowledge transfer from academic institutions
particularly by consulting, and sponsored research (Cohen et al. 1998; Mansfield 1995;
Zucker et al. 1994, 1998). Mansfield (1995) finds that university researchers who receive
research grants from industry report that the problems they worked on in their academic
research are frequently or predominantly developed out of their industrial consulting-and
in many cases, the cited academic researchers' government-funded work stem from ideas
and problems they encounter whilst pursuing industrial consultancy. Goldfarb et al. (200 I)
observe that at times, consultancy is a very effective method of technology transfer.
However, as evidence suggests, they say, it is much more difficult to provide high
powered incentives to encourage academic involvement in the commercialization of their
ideas when consulting is the only tool. Ananth (2006) observes that industry-supported
research is vital for better academia industry relations. In the US, there is almost 40 per
cent research support, while when compared with India and lIT as good an example as
any, the figure is about 10 to 15 per cent although it is increasing.
153 Here knowledge transfer and technology transfer are being used interchangeably as we are addressing academic research institutes that yield technical know-how and new technology as research output for commercialisation
127
While there are enOITIlOUS contributors to cross-national knowledge transfer
literature, which was the prevalent theme prior to 1980s, the increase in number of studies
involving knowledge transfer from academic research institutes has been substantial154.
One of the most important issues pertaining to transfer media is the influence of
intellectual property policies. There is a vast body of literature covering the concern. The
significant development is that legally it is now possible to protect (getting an IPR) some
of the results of basic research. In 1980, the US congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act which
strongly encouraged the universities to take IPR on their research outcomeIS5. After the
implementation of Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, there are studies on its impact and the changes
in public policy pertaining to technology transfer and competitiveness in the US (Rahm et
aI., 1988; Papadakis, 1994; Mowery et ai. 1999; 2001a; 2001b; Correa, 1994)156. In the
context of growing interface between academia and industry in India, commercialisation
of intellectual property in academic institutes has not been much emphasised by anyone
even though there are demands voiced for a legal instrument similar to Bayh-Dole Act in
India by Knowledge CommissionI57. In more recent work by Bhattachrujee (2008), the
intention of the Indian government is noted for its preparation to introduce legislation that
it hopes will reverse the traditional hands-off attitude at most Indian universities toward
commercializing the results of basic research.
Most of the literature on industrial impact of academic research and knowledge
transfer from university has focused either on the role of patents and publications in the
transfer processl58 (Adams, 1990; Henderson et aI., 1998; Jaffe et aI., 1993; Owen-Smith
154 Cross-national technology transfer primarily focus on technology transfer from industrialised nations to less developed countries. 155 The other legal interventions include the Federal Court Improvement Act of 1982, which created the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit and led to stronger IP protection, and the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, which encouraged firms to participate in research joint ventures Markiewicz, \vww.faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/markiewilII050.pdf. 156 Similar laws came up in several countries for instance the Technology Licensing Organisations Law of 1998 in Japan. In Sweden, government policies and programs have encouraged universities to form -Holding Companies' to purchase intellectual property rights from professors. In 1997, the Swedish universities were given athird mission in the Higher Education Act, besides education and research, to support economic and social development and playa greater role in explaining academia to the broader public (see Etzkowitz et aI, 2005 ). Though there is no equivalent to the BayhDole legislation in Brazil, a new law on innovation passed in 2004 has made it easier for faculty members to receive royalties and creative firms. 157 Knowledge Commission, Go I, 2007; Biospectrum, July 2005 15sThere has been much emphasis on patents and licenses due to accessibility of patent data that lends itself well to quantitative analysis
128
and Powell, 2001). In their survey, Cohen, Nelson, and Walsh (2002) found that the most
important channel for knowledge transfer from ARIs or government labs is publication of
the research, followed by infonnal exchange, public meeting or conference, and
consulting. Patents were ranked as one of the least important transfer -channels. The study
by Pavitt (1998) also suggests that patenting by universities is not a potentially useful
measure of university research perfonnance. Cohen, Nelson, and Walsh (2000) in another
study highlighted that the most important pathway through which people in industry
learned of and gained access to what was coming out of public research was through
publications, and open conferences. Industry got most of its benefit from academic science
through open channels. There are studies that say that patenting complements publication
(Agrawal & Henderson, 2002) and also which say that patenting and publication help in
the creation of new finns (Zucker, et aI., 1998; Lowe and Gonzalez.;.Brambila, 2004).
Interestingly the 1980 trend for a more aggressive role for the State in supporting
technology transfer was not confined to US as can be seen in the study by Irvine et ai.
(1981); Crow and Nath (1990, 1992) and Fujisue (1998). Sampat (2006) study specifically
focuses on patenting and US academic research in the 20th century both before and after
the Bayh-Dole legislation. Few studies that have been done studying Indian academia
industry interface emphasize that, analogous to what Zucker, Darby and Brewer (1998),
Siegel, Waldman and Link (1999) have found for the US, personal contacts are essential
for effective knowledge transfer (e.g., Chandra, 2003; Sengupta, 1999).
Mowery, Sampat and Ziedonis (2002a) in a study on university learning with
respect to patenting activity and other factors like influence ofTIOs; analyse the trends in
patenting characteristics by US universities during 1980s and 1990s. Their results indicate
that the importance of entrant institutions' patents improved during the given period
drawing a closer gap with incumbents. The authors conclude that a broader process of
learning based on spillovers among universities may account for the convergence in
importance between the patents of incumbent and entrant universities (also see Mowery
and Shane, 2002). University patenting and its effects on academic research in Europe has
also been studied by Geuna and Nesta (2006), where they explore the fragmentary data on
129
the growth of university-owned patents and university-invented patents in Europe. The
outcome shows a surge in university patenting. However, the phenomenon remains
heterogeneous across countries and disciplines.
According to Kneller (1999), exclusive IPRs are particularly important for small
companies, which depend on exclusive control over technology to attract the capital
necessary for product development and commercialisation 159. A similar outcome was seen
in a study by Chandra (2003) that examined technology transfers from an engineering
institution (lIT Delhi). The study revealed that often it did not matter to industry if the
potential technology had an IPR or not, it only made a difference in case of technologies
in select sectors where competition was fierce.
Extending our hypothesis on the importance of open science in the previous
section, we state that the importance of filing for an IPR is well recognised by IITs in
select sectors like biotechnology, information technology, pharmaceuticals, and applied
chemistry while in other sectors embryonic technologies do seek protection.
3.4.1 Other Specific Modes of Knowledge Transfer
Just as knowledge production, knowledge transfer process also involves various
modes or channels of connectivity to users or clients of research from academic research
institutions such as: (a) the transfer channels (licensing, signing of agreements, equity
participation); (b) the intermediaries (technology transfer office, industry liaison agency,
contract research centres, sciencelresearch parks); and (c) other instruments.
(a) Transfer Channels (licensing agreements, equity participation)
Licensing has emerged as an important mode of knowledge transfer from research
institutions to user clients or industry in recent times. Several recent studies provide some
insights on the nature of university licensing (Jensen and Thursby 2001, Mowery et al.
2001 a, b; Siegel et aI., 1999; Thursby and Kemp, 1999; Thursby et aI., 2001). More
1,9 These become even more significant in certain industries, such as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, where the costs of developing and proving the safety of new products are high whereas the costs of imitating final products are low moreover small businesses are fn:quently the test beds for embryonic university technologies.
130
recently and more so in the US, there is an attempt to comment on the growing policy
debates on Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which gave the right to license inventions from State
funded research (Mowery et aI., 1999; Thursby and Thursby, 2002)160. The study by
Thursby and Thursby (2002) shows that changes in the direction of faculty research
appear relatively less important than other factors, such as the dramatic increase in the
propensity of administrators to patent and license faculty inventions. The authors find that
licensing growth has resulted largely from an increased willingness of faculty and
administrators to engage in licensing. Cohen et al. (1998, 2000) examine the relative
importance of the set of transfer channels from the perspective of the knowledge recipient
firms. Shane (2000) investigates the question of when it is best for a university to license
an invention by considering the effectiveness of different transfer channels subject to the
nature of technology and its appropriateness.
Feldman et ai. (2002) emphasise on the increased use by university licensors of
equity investment as a tool for technology transfer and commercialisation. The authors
explain the inter-institutional differences by developing a behaviour model in which the
use of equity is conditional on licensing experience, past performance, TTO operations
and the organizational structure of the university. Agreements in which a university takes
equity position in a company in exchange for providing the right to use university
intellectual property is becoming an emerging mechanism and the focus of interest of
many universities (Feldman et aI., 2002). Jensen and Thursby (200 I) argue that equity
investments not only provide the same development incentives as royalties but also
generate greater revenue.
(b) Intermediaries (technology transfer office, contract research centres,
science/research parks)
There have been very few studies to discuss, in any real depth, the role that an
industrial liaison office (or its equivalent function within the university system) can play
in the knowledge transfer process. The views from limited pool of experts in this area
160 Here one may also mention that a similar 1998 Technology Transfer Law in Japan does not alter the basic principle that inventors retain the right to patent their inventions; yet it gives them the option of assigning their inventions to TTOs but does not require them to do so.
131
nevertheless provide much insight into the role of technology transfer office (TTO) in
academic institutes, which is a rather new phenomenon in India.
According to Webster and Etzkowitz (1991) a wide range of collaborative links as
well as intermediary agencies through which academic research can be commercialised
have developed. Apart from the traditional short-term contract-research relationship, joint
programmes between academia and industry or government research centres (Gluck,
1992; Blumenthal, 1992), regional technology transfer networks (Sheen, 1992) and
incubator facilities (Seigel et aI., 1999; Thursby et aI., 2001; Venancio, 2000) have grown
in the area of technology transfer from academia. However the extent to which these
changes herald an evolutionary shift in the form of linkages between academia and
industry has been debated in Peters (1987). Slaughter and Rhoades (1990) explore the
costs that these interactions involve.
Limited studies have been done on the role of ITO (Graff et aI., 2002; Etzkowitz,
2002; Teece et aI., 1997) but they are mostly based on studies done in large universities in
USA and Europe. Organisational innovations like technology transfer offices provide a
window on academic discoveries with commercial potential and a point of contact to reach
the academics who originated them (Etzkowitz, 2002). According to Rogers et al. (2000),
the diffusion ofTTOs in US was due to 1980 Bayh Dole Act; due to the growth of the bio
technology and other life sciences industries and their reliance on academic research and
its resulting patents. Mowery et al (2001) attribute the rise in patenting due to the
strengthening of U.S. intellectual property rights, during the 1980s, which resulted from a
combination of judicial decisions that made life forms patentable.
The creation of TTOs has introduced organisational changes that have created
many new opportunities for technology commercialisation and have made academia
industry relationships more transparent and efficient (Graff et aI., 2002). Academic
Scientists differ greatly in their interest in realising financial gains from their discoveries
and in their ability to pursue the practical implications of their research. Even if they do
132
not have a pecuniary motivation themselves, TIOs can make arrangements to protect and
license discoveries on their behalf and that of institute (Etzkowitz, 2002).
The importance of having a separate unit, yet being a part of the institute has been
emphasised by researchers. Some studies specifically focus on professional aspects of
TIO. The skills necessary for successful technology commercialisation are largely tacit
and are developed through a process of learning-by-doing (Teece, 1981). As a result these
skills are'not sold effectively in markets (Teece et aI., 1997). According to Shane (2002),
the best solution for university technology commercialisation requires that economic
actors who have a comparative advantage in that activity should commercialise that
technology. He notes that on the average, the inventors of university technology do not
have a comparative advantage III technology commercialisation. Technology
commercialisation involves a set of skills-including identifying customer needs,
developing product concepts, designing products and processes, proto typing, and
manufacturing-that university inventors rarely possess. In the absence of problems in
market for knowledge, the licensing of inventions to those advantaged in technology
commercialisation provides a mechanism for allocating inventions to those actors who are
best able to commercialise them (Teece, 1980).
Debackere and Veugelers (2005) explore the role of TTOs in improving industry
science links. They explore the evolution of 'effective' university based technology
transfer mechanisms and analyse how the creation of appropriate decision and monitoring
processes within a TIO has brought about critical elements in fostering an 'effective'
commercialisation of the academic science base. One of the very few studies on assessing
the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology
transfer offices is done by Siegel et ai. (2003). This exploratory study gives both
quantitative and qualitative evidence on the relative productivity of TIOs and suggests
that TTO activity is characterised by constant returns to scale and that environmental and
institutional factor explain some of the variations in performance. According to them
productivity may also depend on organizational practices. Their study reveals that the
most critical organizational factors are faculty reward systems, ITO
133
staffing/compensation practices and cultural barriers between universities and firms.
Rogers, Yin and Hoffmann (2000) assess the effectiveness of TTOs at US research
universities and lay down the characteristics of universities that are relatively more
effective in technology transfer namely higher average faculty salaries, a large number of
staff for technology licensing, a higher value of private gifts, grants and contracts, and
finally more R&D funding from industry and federal sources. However there are many
myths associated with TTO but the reality is different (see table 3.2)
Table 3.2: Knowledge Transfer through a TTO/TLO MYTH REALITY Royalties are a significant source of revenue With exception of 'big winners' - licensing revenue
is small Quick return on technology investment is expected Most finns want quick time to market Firms are eager to accept new technology from Academia spawned technology is embryonic, and it academic research institutions requires investment and time Technology transfer office finds the licensee Inventor is the best source for leads to potential
licensees Source: CompIled usmg mputs from TTO/Industry liaison agencies at IITs/Websltes of MIT and Stanford
The use of Contract Research Organisation (CRO) as agenCIes for enhancing
technology transfer between academia to industry is a well-accepted norm especially in
the OECD countries. As per Webster (1994a), there are Public Sector contract research
organisations like German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, lAGB; Dutch Toegepast Natuur
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoet (TNO) as well as private CROs such as AEA Technology in
UK and the California based SRI International that are engaged in technology transfer
activitiesl61• Government of India initiatives in promoting academia-industry linkages and
by extension in facilitating commercialisation of technologies include setting up of
technology transfer organisations like the National Research Development Corporation
(NRDC); intermediaries like consortia to promote multilateral linkages and success rates
of joint projects and industry-university ceIls.162 On many occasions, consultants play an
161 There are other notable larger CROs such as MIRA, SIRA (specialists in optical, electronic and mechanical engineering) and Smith Associates (with strong defence links) in UK; Bertin in France; Centro Informazione Studi Esperienza CISE) in Italy; Batelle in USA. A IT Bell Labs, GTE Labs and Alcoa Laboratories are private corporations in USA, operating on behalf of both their parent company and industrial clients. 16~ Government initiatives also include setting up of programmes & policies: the Science and Technology Entrepreneur Park scheme (STEP) was initiated in 1984 by the National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Board (NSTEDB) under Department of Science and Technology (DST). The Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council (T1FAC), an autonomous body under DST initiated the Home Grown Technologies pfCIgram which monitors and matches the available technologies in academia and nationai laboratories with the needs of industry. Programme aimoo
134
important role in facilitating knowledge transfer (Bessant and Rush, 1-995). The role of
professional associations is also highlighted for instance Sandelin (2006) notes that
professional associations are relatively new in Asia as compared to the Association of
University Technology Managers (AUTM) which started in 1975 in the us. In India a
similar initiative has been started in 2005 in the name of Society for Technology
Management (STEM).
Science Parks as an institutional medium play an important role in technology
transfer but the studies are limited, for instance Felsenstein (1994) whi,Ie comparing 160
high technology firms in Israel, located both within and outside the science parks, found
that there was no direct contribution to innovation for firms located inside the science park
but the park did confer status and prestige to the firms which indirectly promoted
technology transfer. Macdonald and Joseph (2001) explore the technology business
incubator and science and technology parks scheme in Philippines. The authors critically
evaluate the scheme and show that because uncertainty plagued its implementation, so
what was achieved was more attributable to the determination of individuals than to
ambitions and conflicting policies. In India, Rao (2006) notes, many science and
technology parks have been established in various engineering colleges. ICICI has set up a
knowledge park in Hyderabad with (a) physical facilities (b) knowledge network with
RTIs, nCT and ICCB and (c) VC fund from ICICI, for technology incubation.
As we mentioned earlier that the establishment ofITOs in India is a relatively new
phenomenon, there are studies in India supporting the view. Basant and Chandra (2007)
observe that not all institutions seem to have an adequate knowledge base to participate in
knowledge based networking activity. Moreover, only a few of these institutions have
systems in place to undertake formal knowledge transfer. Mohan (2006) brings about the
functioning of TTOs operating in contrasting cultures of academia and industry and
further'notes that the TTOs in academia are not so successful. Citing the example of IISc
at Technology Self Reliance (PA TSER) initiated by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provides partial financial support for R&D and design projects that are undertaken jointly by industry and academic institutelnationallaboratory. Technology Development Fund was created by the DST, which appointed a Technology Development Board to monitor, fund and support commercial application of indigenous technologies (See Kharbanda and Jain, 1999; Chandra, 2003).
135
Bangalore he observes that technology transfer without technology creation is of no value.
He further says "academics don't have proper exposure to the industry requirements and
as such do not extend their basic research activity for industrial applications". The other
reason is that as individual scientists can neither form the -groups themselves nor can
effectively interact with industries, the success in increasing awareness among academic
community to transfer their innovation is limited.
The lIT Review Committee Report, 2004 reported two distinct models that have
evolved in the IITs for fostering academia industry linkages: an internal cell completely
within the system and an autonomously governed industry-interface foundation. As per
the review committee chaired by Professor Rama Rao, the latter has certain advantages:
the relationships between the user agencies and the institution can be managed with
greater flexibility, because of its autonomous character, it does not depend on the IITs for
budget support other than the initial seed fund for establishment and is thus able to obtain
finances from wide-ranging sources. Furthermore, the autonomous centre can appoint
non-academic professionals without burdening the institution which allows better business
development and interface with industry.
Based on the above discussion, we hypothesise that the modes of knowledge
transfer and academia-industry relations in IITs is more likely to be influenced and
driven by the conventional routes of consultancy and sponsored research links with
industry compared to Triple Helix influenced mode of ITO based knowledge transfers.
Further in view of the organisational culture and practice in IITs, as also the professional
aspects of a traditional ITO (as e~plained above by Shane, 2002; Teece, 1980), we
hypothesise that the establishment of ITOs as an intermediate agency internally, and
having a pecuniary motivation is unlikely to play a significant role as a mode of
knowledge transfer.
136
(c) Other instruments: government policy, subsidy, venture capital, market & non
mal"ket factors, informal transfers)
There is enormous literature ,m this area emphasising on government policy,
market pull and market push strategies (Feller, 1987, 1997; Dalpe et aI., 1992; Gander,
1986; Baker et aI., 1967; Langrishet al. (l972); Myers and Marquis (1969); Utterback,
1974 etc.). Most of the studies, however, focus on government research laboratories and
the public sector's role in shaping demand and markets for technology. Azzone and
Maccarrone (1997) in their study on flow of scientific knowledge from academic institute
to small and medium enterprise in Italy, show that demand is influenced by a 'flexible
infrastructure' rather than a set of fixed, institutionalised resources and suggests that the
critical mass of demands for technologies and technical competencies in biomedical
industry is a primary factor in determining market impact and the success of technology
transfer. Goldfarb and Henrekson (2003) give a comparative account of policies that
influence commercialisation of university intellectual property in the US and Sweden. Di
Gregorio and Shane (2003) have empirically shown that intellectual eminence of
universities attracts venture capital, which is a substantial boundary in firm formation.
More often, universities organise networking events to nurture partnerships in the
financial, scientific, and technological field (Mustar, 1997). Nicolaou and Birley (2003)
also show that networks can aid the emergence of ventures by providing four significant
benefits namely, augmenting the opportunity identification process, providing access to
loci of resources, engendering timing advantages, and constituting a source of trust.
Avnimelech and Teubal (2006) give an account of industry life cycle model of venture
capital. The paper by Langford et al. (2006) analyse the attempts made by Canadian
government to encourage and measure commercialisation of university knowledge for
socio-economic improvement. The primary issues that emerge show that the emphasis is
on licensing and spin-offs and several important paths of knowledge flow are not
measured. Secondly, if the goals and incentives of the actors in the 'triple helix' are
skewed or misinterpreted by indicators, universities and firms may engage in
counterproductive activities. The authors suggest additional indicators to help prevent
, measurable dimension from becoming the policy driver to the detriment of overall goals.
137
In most of the cases the technology transfer literature presumes that firms are the recipient
of technologies, there are specific studies addressing the government as the user of the
research outcome (Bozeman et al., 1978; Lambright, 1979; Doctors, 1981). On
effectiveness of transfer to recipients, there are studies done by Kingsley and Farmer
(1997); Kingsley et aI., (1996) that indicate that public regulations often strongly affect
technology transfer. Transfers are more successful between government source and
recipients.
In the Indian context, there are studies that highlight the government policies in
promoting knowledge transfer. (Gupta and Dutta, 2005) give a detailed account of
government initiatives through different departments like the science and technology,
scientific and industrial research, information technology and others. The authors note that
Government of India has created an impressive infrastructure (since the major thrust that
came in 1958 in the form of Scientific Policy Resolution) in terms of institutions and
R&D units; policies; and schemes for promoting knowledge transfer from academia.
There are other studies of similar nature, for instance while Srinivasan and Abhyankar
(2002) focus on national funding mechanisms for promotion transfer and management of
technology Chandrakant et ai. (1982) stress upon IITs and their industry interaction. There
are limited studies on Indian venture capital industry. As per Gupta and Dutta (2005), the
origin of modem venture capital in India can be traced to the setting up of a Technology
Development Fund (TDF) in the year 1987-88 through the levy of a cess on all technology
import payments. TDF was meant to provide financial assistance to innovative and high
risk technological programs. The other noted studies on venture capital are by Holt (1999)
and Mohan (2004) giving the nature and status of venture capital in India.
Many university discoveries are transferred informally. According to Kneller
(1999), the informal transfers occur in many ways. Professors consult with companies,
corporate researchers working in university laboratories communicate research results
back to their companies. Graduates find employment in companies. Another study by
Bozeman et al. (1995) focuses on the informal relations among scientists. The other
transfer media cumprises of training of personnel, who are instrumental in managing
technology transfer (Grosse, 1996, Hicks 1993).
138
3.4.2 Studies on Success and Failure of Technology Transfer
Various studies on technology transfer have identified key factors that either
stimulate or stifle the technology commercialisation process. Even though most of these
studies have been carried out clearly looking at the technology transfer process from
national or public/private research and development laboratories to industry, they raise a
lot of issues and give much insight, when technology commercialisation takes place from
academic institute to industry.
The Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex carried out Project
SAPPHO (SPRU, 1972), which identified key factors that distinguish innovations as
having achieved commercial success from those which have not. The study presumed that
innovation is a complex sequence of events, involving scientific research and
technological development, management, production and marketing and therefore
allowance must be made for multi~factor explanations rather than single factor
interpretations. The study comprised of examining 29 pairs of successful and failure cases,
17 in chemical and 12 in instruments industries. The results indicated a consistent pattern
of differences between success and failure in innovation, which can be summarized in the
following five statements:
User Needs: Successful innovators have a much better understanding of the user needs
conversely, the neglect of user needs or failure to address and interpret such needs in the
R&D work leads to the failure in innovation.
Marketing: Successful innovators pay much attention to marketing, whereas failures are
characterized by neglect of market research, publicity and user education and failure to
anticipate customer problems.
R&D Strength: Successful innovators perform the development work more efficiently, but
not necessarily more quickly. They eliminate technical defects from the product or process
before they launch it.
139
Communication: More effective use of outside technology and scientific advice by
successful innovators is done, even though most of their development work is done in
house.
Management Strength: The responsible individuals in the successful innovations are
usually more senior and have greater authority than their counterparts who fail. The
greater power is reflected in satisfactorily controlling the project, establishing effective
internal and external communication networks and integrating the project into overall
company strategy.
In the study by Doctors (1969), barriers in the process of technology transfer were
highlighted. According to him the possible barriers are insufficient mission orientation of
the technical personnel in most of the agencies, conflicting policies concerning legal rights
to patentable innovation and other proprietary data, institutional barriers to information
flow, vertical nature of institutions for transfer, low value being placed on the transfer
function by scientific and technological personnel engaged in federally sponsored R&D,
poor and antiquated methods of information & retrieval and poor understanding of the
process among several others. Based on a survey, Rothwell (1977) summarized the key
factors for an innovation to succeed, which included having good communication and
effective collaboration both at the inter and intra-firm level between institute and industry,
the use of careful planning and management techniques, having an organic and open
management style with both commitment and enthusiasm for each project, understanding
the influence of government assistance, being responsive to recognition of user needs,
ensuring the presence of important individuals, and paying attention to after-sales-service.
I
Several studies have examined the mechanisms that trigger an innovation and from
a review of those it was noted (Utterback, 1974) that 60-80 percent of important
innovations in different fields were in response to market demands (need-pull factor), and
the remaining 2040 percent had their origin from scientific and technological advances or
opportunities. Baker and Rubenstein (1 %7) postulated that two events are necessary
precursors for the generation of an idea for innovation. (i) need event, i.e. recognition of
the need, problem or opportunity which is perceived to be relevant to organizational
140
objectives; and (ii) means event i.e. recognition Df a means or technique by which to
satisfy the need, solve the problem or capitalize on the opportunity. From a survey of
innovations, they found that the. 'need event' usually occured prior to the 'means event'.
Studiesl63 have shown that only a small subset of invention disclosures generate any
commercial interest which further aid in technology transfer from university to industry.
The rule of the thumb in university technology transfer is that for every 100-invention
disclosures, 10 patents and 1 commercially successful product result (Blake, 1993).
Although studies have been done in India examining the cases of technology
transfer (Nath, 1988; Qureshi et aI., 1984; Subrahmanian, 1985; Desai, 1980; Morehouse,
1977) they are limited in number and are based on public funded research laboratories.
Morehouse (1977) noted that scientists in the laboratories were not sure about the
economic feasibility ofthe inventions before the research was performed.
Having discussed varied opinion on academia-industry interaction, the process of
knowledge production, knowledge transfer, their constituents, their influencing factors and
the theoretical frameworks, it would be imprudent not to discuss about the emerging
concept of 'entrepreneurial university'.
163 The studies include: Jensen and Thursby (200I), Mowery et al. (l999), Feller e! al. (2000). In a survey done by Jensen and Thursby it was evident that only about 12% of the licensed technology is ready for commercialization. The majority of licensed technology requires significant development work and ongoing cooperation by faculty to realize commercial success.
141
3.5 Emergence of Entrepreneurial University
In recent years the concept of entrepreneurial university has come into sharp focus
in the literature on Triple Helix. As new technologies and science based innovation come
to play a significant part in the knowledge based economies, the role of universities is
drawing more and more attention. Together with TTOs, patenting and IPR regimes,
institutional and organisational measures to promote entrepreneurship, incubation centres
and spin-off firms come to characterise the emergence of entrepreneurial university. The
emergence of entrepreneurial university concept first in the US (Etzkowitz et aI., 2000)
perhaps made an aspiring normative form of organisation which has later spread to UK
and other countries of Asia such as Singapore, Hong Kong and China. According to
Etzkowitz (2005) and Clark (1992) an entrepreneurial university is emerging as a common
academic and economic development format in both advanced industrial and developing
countries. Etzkowitz and Zhou (2006) predict that entrepreneurial universities would play
a leading role in regional innovation and in encouraging start-ups. The other two spheres:
industry and government would play similar roles, the former would reorganise itself in a
network mode to be more receptive to external inputs and latter would develop
programmes cooperatively with the other actors to support enhancement of academia
industry and the links between them. They say that the three spheres would act as a
common subject and cooperatively implement an economic growth strategy. In simple
terms Etzkowitz (2002), says that a new academic model-the entrepreneurial university is
being created as universities combine teaching and research with the capitalization of
knowledge.
, Having already discussed the characteristics of the 'entrepreneurial university' as
laid out by Etzkowitz et al. (2000) in the introductory section, wherein internal
transformations, interface processes, recursive effects and trans-institutional impacts
bring out the features of entrepreneurship in academia, there are yet other literature on a
wide variety of issues dealing with organisational, cultural, and economic matters related
to academic entrepreneurship and spin-off firms l64• An entrepreneurial academic strategy
164 See recent articles by Etzkowitz (2003a); Lehrer and Asakawa (2004) and Meyer (2003)
142
IS the capacity to mme research for use through an array of technology transfer
mechanisms that close the gap between invention and innovation (Owen-Smith, 2001;
Owen Smith and Powell, 2003 as quoted in Etzkowitz, 2005). According to Jacob et al.
(2003: 1556), entrepreneurial university is a term now being used to refer to universities
which possess a wide range of new infrastructural support mechanisms for fostering
entrepreneurship within the organisation as well as packaging entrepreneurship as a
productl65• Jacob et al. (2003) give an account of one Swedish university's ongoing efforts
. to develop an in-house system for commercialisation of knowledge that meets both the
traditional and new role of the university.
Tijssen (2006) apparently introduces a conceptual framework to conduct
comprehensive analyses of university's 'industrially relevant research' in relation to the
science based entrepreneurial orientation of university units. The caveat however is that
the study is restricted to research related activities, outcomes and impact and thus does not
include teaching, training and consultancy activities with a commercial value. The results
suggest that many structural factors determine academia-industry interactions and the
potential for entrepreneurial orientation. The connectivity indicators namely public-private
co-authored research articles and references (citations) within corporate research articles
to university research articles according to Tijssen appear to be of minor importance as
compared to a university's country of location and magnitude of its research activities in
industrially relevant fields of science.
Although there are studies on universities that are established for profit orientation
(see Ruch, 2001; Gose, 1999) there is a visible difference in their characteristics and that
of 'entrepreneurial universities'. 'For-profit' presidents (of such universities) resemble
traditional CEOs more than they do academic leaders. They are focused on setting and
implementing institutional strategy and especially on the managing of resources and
operation (Ruch: 109).
165 However this study does not focus on the latter part where phenomena such as courses in entrepreneurship and restructuring of the organisational structure of universities that would allow active promotion of entrepreneurship are dealt with
143
In the context of IITs, we therefore presume that the mode of knowledge transfer is
more likely to be manifested in varying forms ranging from conventional sponsored and
consultancy projects to the mode of Triple Helix and rise of entrepreneurial culture.
3.5.1 New Firms, Spin-offs and Incubators
Many scholars believe that as the scope of academic activities widen, academia is
able to make a greater and better contribution to the economic needs of the region. Not
only have these beliefs and perceptions strengthened the viewpoints of several people but
it has been increasingly recognised now that closer association with industry and
collaborative research especially in the new science-based industries, has proven to be a
steady source of entrepreneurship and fresh economic competitiveness, often leading to
the creation of new finns or spin-offs and contributing to the obsolescence of others.
The spin-offs are simply defined as the companies that evolve from academic
institutions through commercialisation of intellectual property and transfer of technology
developed within academic institutions. The outcome of a University Spin-off (USO) is
profit oriented firm formation and all current definitions are unanimous in this respect
(Carayannis et aI., 1998; Clarysse et aI., 2000; Klofsten et aI., 2000 as quoted in Djokovic
and Souitaris, 2004). Smilor et ai. (1990) have defined spin-offs as a new company that is
fonned (1) by individuals who were former employees of a parent organisation and (2) is
based on a core technology that is transferred from the parent organisation. As cited in
Djokovic and Souitaris (2004), the definition given by Smilor et ai. (1990) was broadened
by Nicolaou and Birley (2003) who noted that a usa includes: (l) the transfer of a core
technology from an academic institution into a new company and (2) the founding
member{s) may include the inventor academic(s) who mayor may not be currently
affiliated with the academic institutionl66• Also, Pirnay et ai. (2003) after systematically
analysing a number of different definitions of university spin-offs concluded to the
following: "University spin-offs are new firms created to exploit commercially some
knowledge, technology or research results developed within a university".
166 Radosevich (1995) has differentiated between inventor--entrepreneurs and surrogate--entrepreneurs who did not invent the technology but acquired the rights to commercialise it from the academic institution.
144
There are studies which highlight the reasons for the fonnation of spin-offs. For
instance Samsom and Gurdon (1993) observe the need to resolve institutional tensions
which commercially orientated activity creates within the university, without radically
severing the protagonists' links to academia as one of the prime reasons. Stankiewicz
(1994: 102) interprets the fonnation of spin-offs as an attempt to create an institutional
space for activities which do not quite fit into the established structures of academia and
business; a space which would allow the scientists and engineers to preserve their
professional identities while acquiring new roles in the process of commercial ising
technology.
A few studies have focused on the process of academia spin-offs formation and
evolution. Ndonzuau et at. (2003); Vohora et at. (2004); Carayannis et al. (1998); Roberts
& Malone (1996) all of them typically describing the process with a number of phases.
Ndonzuau et al. (2003) identify four main process phases - that of business idea
generation from research; finalisation of new venture projects out of ideas; third phase of
launching spin-off finns from projects and finally strengthening the creation of economic
value 1 67. Vohora et al. (2004) on the other hand offer an evolutionary perspective on the
process of the spin-off phenomenon. They identify four stages, which these spin-offs
undergo during their fonnation, namely the research phase, the opportunity framing phase,
the pre-organisation, and the re-orientation before reaching onto the next stage, which
again comprises of four phases: opporfunity recognition, entrepreneurial commitment,
threshold of credibility and finally threshold of sustainability.
There have been an increasing number of literatures focusing on the role of new
finns as vehicles for commercialising university inventions but not many scholars have
voiced their opinion on spin-offs. However, these studies show a mixed opinion- some
good, some critical. For instance, Harmon, et al. (1997) point out that spinouts have very
little impact on the economy or job creation. Others like Tijssen (2006); Pries and Guild
167This study as per Djokovic and Souitaris (2004) did not offer much explanation of the progression from one stage to the other.
145
(2007) and O'Shea et ai. (2007) have positive attitude towards university
commercialisation activities and believe that "the economic development momentum thut
has been generated at institutions in recent years should be vigorously pursued in a
proactive manner" (Chrisman et aI., 1995 as quoted in Djokovic and Souitaris, 2004: 8).
Zucker et ai. (2002) focus on the role of scientific talent in the creation of
university start-ups when they argue that scientific ability is central to the founding and
performance of new biotechnology companies. They also examine the effect of the
scientific ability of biotechnology firm's founders on performance of new biotechnology
firms. They find that firms founded by "star scientists" outperform other finns even after
accounting for the location of these firms and the amount of venture capital they receive.
Landry et ai. (2006) addresses the issue of university researchers more likely to be
successful in creation of spin-offs. Their findings suggest that the traditional and
entrepreneurial versions of university research complement each other when one looks at
the resources mobilised by researchers to create spin-offs. Shane (2000) links the
formation of finns to intellectual property where he observes that the university faculty,
staff, and students are more likely to find firms so as to commercialise their inventions
when these technologies do not enjoy strong patent protection. He further says that non
inventors are more likely to commercialise those inventions when patent protection is
strong. Shane and Stuart (2002) examine the related question of why some university
start-ups are more successful than the others. They observe that the magnitude of venture
funding is an important determinant of the likelihood of a successful Initial Public Offer
(IPO). Candel and Jaffe (1999) in their study on the impact of public research funding in
Massachusetts found that the spill-over effect from the new knowledge and new products
developed by academic and academically trained researchers had a considerable positive
long-tenn impact on the Massachusetts economy. Rothaermel and Thursby (2005)
investigate the research question of how knowledge actually flows from universities to
incubator firms and assess the effect of these knowledge flows on incubator firm-level
differential perfonnance. Mian (1996) goes one step further and assesses the value added
contributions of university technology business incubators to their new technology-based
tenant firms.
146
The rising number of universities involved in commercialisation activities such as
licensing and spinning out have also been well reported and documented in several
surveys like the University Companies Association (UNICO) survey, Nottingham
University Business School Survey (NUBS) and the Association of University
Technology Mangers or the AUTM survey in USA. UNICO (2001) and AUTM (2002)
show that academic institutions in USA and UK are creating company spinouts at an
increasing rate. Mustar (1997) shows how French academics create hi-tech companies and
explores the conditions for success and failures. Bray and Lee (2000) observe that
spinning-out is a far more effective technology transfer mechanism compared to licensing,
as it creates 10 times higher income, and therefore argues that license positions are only
taken when "technology is not suitable for a spin-off company".
Apart from the academia driven efforts towards creation of spin offs, there are
market driven forces that have concerted the formation of firms. Empirical studies, not
necessarily pertaining to academic research, have correlated high technology firm
formation with research and development intensity (Cohen and Levin, 1989, Scherer
1980), and appropriability conditions (Arrow 1962, Levin et al. 1987, Nelson and Winter
1982) not to mention other crucial factors like capital accessibility, industrial
concentration, size of the firm and such factors. Lowe (1993) also provided a framework
of favourable market preconditions when he observed that spinout companies were most
likely to be formed when the availability of complementary assets were high to the
academic institution and/or to the inventor(s) and secondly when the technology used was
under strong legal and technical protection. He further elucidated that licensing
agreements are realized when availability of complementary assets are poor. Lowe also
argued that spinouts were more likely to evolve in emerging industries where
technological trajectories are still evolving and where innovation is radical. However
empirical evidence on this framework is still lacking. Djokovic and Souitaris (2004)
propose that the reputation of the university can be art important variable that affects the
licensing versus spinout decision. There are other factors as well that influence spin-offs
formation for instance the career-reward structure that academia puts forward for
147
academics. Klofsten and Dylan (2000) have shown that barriers to taking temporary leaves
to start firms (which are common in USA) has made Swedish academics concentrate on
consulting which can be accomplished beside academic position. Olofson and Wahlbin
(1984 as cited in Djokovic and Souitaris, 2004) linked academic exodus with growth rate
of the firm, finding that spinouts with highest growth rates were the ones involving
academics who left the university.
Shane's (2002a) study of 134 start-ups from MIT revealed that direct and indirect
relationships of the spin-off creators with venture investors were more likely to receive
venture funding and were less liable to fail. His finding therefore advocates that social
capital endowments, through their impact on the fund-raising process, have long-term,
positive impact on the performance of new venture. Smith and Ho (2006) have studied the
performance of spin-off companies from Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University,
Cranfield DCMT at Shrivenham and its seven government-funded and privatised public
research laboratories. Their study shows that the number of spin.,.offs in Oxfordshire has
increased rapidly as the result of evolving national policy and the entrepreneurial culture
of the universities and laboratories. However the study also shows that academics and
scientists were already entrepreneurial in the 1950s, less so in 1960s but increasingly in
1970s and thereafter, particularly in Oxford University which at that time was the largest
generator of spin-offs in the region.
Lockett et al. (2003) show the importance of networks, at the level of academic
institutions. Vohora et al. (2004) investigate the development of university spin-offs and
show that these ventures face 'critical junctures' in terms of the resources and capabilities
that they need to acquire to progress to the next phase. For a successful spin-off the
authors identify four different 'critical junctures' that the ventures need to overcome
namely- opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial commitment, credibility and
sustainability. Without such availability of venture capital, and network second rank
universities cannot commercialise their intellectual property through firm formation and
cannot gain trust from venture capitalists due to their lack of spinout expertise. Thus, it
can be argued that second-rank academic institutions, which could be more involved in
148
spinning out new ventures, are bounded to licensing due to their lack of ties to venture
capitalists and industrial partners.
There are no studies that exclusively study the impact of spin-offs in India, even
though there are quite a few articles related to success stories primarily at the IITs. For
instance Rao (2006) note that lIT Delhi has incubated and spun-off 7-8 technology-based
firms as commercial enterprises, while at another centre in lIT Mumbai, Society for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SINE) has facilitated the conversion of research activity
into entrepreneurial ventures. Success stories from the incubator include Herald Logic
which develops products in enterprise information, rule-based engine; Voyager2 Infotech,
which built a creative ideas portal; Myzus Technologies, which develops products and
services in the areas of wireless gateways and connectivity bridges.
In the light of the above discussion we hypothesise that IITs in recent years have
embraced or come to advance the concept of entrepreneurial university in parallel to the
dominant orientation of teaching and research excellence. T71is is primarily due to the
evidence of dynamic formations such as the technology transfer offices, intellectual
property policy, patent cells, rising sponsored research projects and industrial
consultancy assignments and more importantly the establishment of incubation units at
IITs. To be specific, we hypothesise that IITs seem to adapt the spin-off route to
commercialisation of R&D knowledge transfer much more than the mode of licensing and
royalty earning.
3.5.2 Indirect Spin-offs
There are numerous studies that have elaborated upon and analysed on the direct spin-offs
from academia. In this thesis we generate a scope for focusing on the indirect spin-offs
from academia primarily by taking academic entrepreneurs (read lIT alumni) as the unit of
analysis, linking the spin-off phenomenon with entrepreneurship theory on identification
of an opportunityl68. In other words the emphasis is on knowing those entrepreneurs who
168 For a similar concept see Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Ardichvili et aI., 2003.
149
have been alumni of an academic institute and have fonned companies or finns thus
contributing to economic and social development of the country. In one of the studies
assessing the contribution of people from IITs Saxenian (1999) notes that approximately
10 per cent of all start-ups in Silicon Valley be,tween 1995 and 1998 were by Indians,
most of whom had come from the lIT system. It has been suggested that the IITs have,
perhaps, produced more millionaires per capita than any other undergraduate academic
institution in the world. It is not surprising that most of the IITs' successful alumni credit
their alma mater with playing a foundational or leading role in their achievements (Murali,
2003).
150
3.6 Concluding Discussion and Summary of Hypotheses
We discussed and raised issues about contemporary academic research institutes
increasingly seen to shift their functioning from being just a 'factory of knowledge'
addressing teaching and research to making contributions in economic development by
capitalising on their intellectual assets. We overviewed a number of related studies on
academia-industry interaction and discussed specific literature survey on knowledge
production examining knowledge products and their influencing factors. We also
discussed literature related to knowledge transfer - transfer channels, technology transfer
offices, success and failure factors, contemporary literature on start-up firms and
incubation units and finally on the emergence of 'entrepreneurial universities'.
One of the most important discussions in this chapter centred on the theoretical
frameworks for an inclusive understanding of the role of academic research institutes in
the system of innovation. Since we explored the literature on 'National System of
Innovation" 'New Production of Knowledge-Mode 2' and 'Triple Helix'; we have
attempted to conceptualise a framework which is suitable for IITs. We understand that in
order to analyse the developments and to guide the future growth of relationships and
interactions among the three entities (academia-industry-government as said in 'triple
helix'), a new model of the relationship among the institutional spheres and their internal
transformation would be required. The nature of such associations or linkages as suitable
to local flavour and conditions is what the developing countries like India should look for
in their pursuit of creating and nurturing innovations.
3.6.1 Situating the IITs in a suitable framework
The IITs have been in existence for over SIX decades making significant
contributions in terms of knowledge production, creating highly skilled, well educated
graduates and post graduates in engineering, science, social science and management l69•
These institutions have also played a consequential role in imparting quality teaching and
169 As has been discussed in the section on origin and development of IITs in the previous chapter, five lITs were set up in ten year span starting from 1951 but lIT Guwahati was set up as the sixth lIT in 1994 while liT Roorkee came into the lIT system in 200 I.
151
research through exceptionally good faculty and staff. However, the involvement of -IITs
in making use of their intellectual assets for economic deVelopment and also for
generating revenue has gained considerable attention in the last one decade or so. Our
discussion on theoretical frameworks has evaluated the shift of the universities in this
direction worldwide and we relate these phenomena to the observations in IITs as a
representative set of higher ARIs (particularly in science and engineering) in India. The
inter-relationships and linkages that exist between these knowledge producing institutions
and users of the knowledge along with intermediary agencies are identified and portrayed
in the context peculiar to India. This context is based on India's higher education system,
industry linkages, government establishments, innovation capability, human resources and
the linkages with their foreign counterparts. From the literature on 'NSI' which has lately
emphasised on the role of universities as integral component of innovation system, we
may ask if IITs in this context are putting a strong foothold in creating a knowledge
research base that contributes in economic development and technical change. We may
also evaluate if IITs are seen as frontiers of science based innovations pushing them
towards enterprising institutions that compete from other producers of knowledge? The
discussion on 'New Production of Knowledge or 'Mode 2' further incites issues which
raise important questions whether knowledge production in 'Mode I' has been eclipsed by
the new mode 'Mode 2' in all the five IITs? Whether knowledge produced in I1Ts has
been characterised by interdisciplinarity and plurality and if it is transient and more
importantly if knowledge is being produced only in the context of application?
Since we have said that university lies at the centre of analysis in 'triple helix', this
study draws much more theoretical understanding from the same. Having discussed the
framework we also observe that 'triple helix' is yet to yield major empirical or research
advances, and its value as a guide for future empirical research appears to be limited
(Mowery and Sampat, 2004). To probe deeper into the intricacies of the framework we see
that one of the most significant weaknesses in the 'triple helix' argument are the
underestimation of the complexity in establishing strategic alliances and joint ventures and
then managing them in the transaction space, and assumptions of commonality in values
and attitude relating to the purpose and conduct of research (Howard, 2004). Even where
152
III principle agreement is reached for collaborations, there are often insurmountable
hurdles to be crossed in resource allocations and reconciling institutional differences and
priorities and the risks of compromise to institutional purpose. This peculiarity has been
noted and observed earlier that there are institutional differences and problems of mutual
trust, particularly with industry (Chandra, 2003; Nath, 1992; Indiresan, 2000; Indiresan
and Nigam, 1993). Here we may pose a question if the university-industry-govemment
related triple helix model is partially applicable to the Indian context. In other words, we
might establish that only a bilateral relationship exists between academia and industry or
between academia and government.
Howard (2004) says that the idea of convergence between institutions of higher
education, industry and state, with each taking on the characteristics of the other not only
suffers from a conceptual weakness, but it is also inappropriate in that it compromises the
ability of institutions to achieve high levels of performance in relation to their foundation
purposes. He notes that the efforts of higher education institutions to operate as businesses
in a commercial environment have been largely unsuccessful and major problems have
emerged in relation to the integrity of their missions relating to teaching and research
when this is attempted. Similarly businesses have not embraced the contribution of higher
education institutions to industrial innovation. There are other problems that have been
reflected in 'triple helix' most of them arising after using the framework in various
empirical studies 170. The helix's emphasis on a more 'industrial' role for universities may
be valid, although it overstates the extent to which these 'industrial' activities are
occurring throughout universities, rather than in a few fields of academic research 1 7
I.
Benner and Sandstrom (2000) address the issue of institutional mechanisms which either
facilitate or impede the development of new forms of knowledge production. This issue
according to them has been neglected in 'triple helix' frame of reference. The authors
suggest an 'institutionalist' complement to the triple helix model where they analyse
170 According to Bunders et al. (1999), the main argument is that in 'triple helix', by limiting the process of technological innovation to industry, university and government the room for technological change is essentially constrained. The ileglect of users in the innovation process is a major limitation in this model. (Howard, 2004: 37) observes the views in 'triple helix' have a heavy 'statist' orient:!tion, implying an important role tor government, but overlook fundamental market issues relating to the sale and purchase of commercially applicable knOWledge. 171 The general criticism about 'triple helix' that prevails is that this scholarship devotes little attention to the 'transformations' in industry and government that are asserted to complement those in universities.
153
institutional regulation of acade~ic research emphasising on the way norms in the
academic system are constituted through research funding. They infer that the forces of
change and continuity are engaged in the negotiation process about the nonnative
regulation of academic research. In the case of IITs, the lIT system is governed by the lIT
Act (1961) and the nonns and guidelines, statutes and ordinances are all guided by this
Act. The policies for knowledge transfer in particular, that attribute to changes in the
organisational and institutional reforms in academia should greatly involve the opinion of
academic experts.
Coming back to the discussion on the recognition of importance of open science
we may presume, based on our literature survey, that IITs scrutinise their efforts to protect
their knowledge assets. The importance of filing for an IPR is well recognised by IITs in
select sectors like biotechnology, information technology, phannaceuticals,
nanotechnology, and applied chemistry while in other sectors embryonic technologies do
seek protection. We may also presume that exclusive IPRs do not seem to be particularly
. important for small companies which are believed to provide benefit so as to depend on
exclusive control over technology and be able to attract capital necessary for product
development and commercialisation. However for SME's in certain industries, such as
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, where the costs of imitating final products are low
these become significant.
Owing to our discussion on those ARIs that have built considerable research
capability, produced innovations, established strong networks with angel investors and
industry, and earned ample reputation; who happen to create spin-offs rather than second
tier institutions that lack these factors or have not yet achieved a desired level, we would
see in our empirical findings if IITs are seen to adapt the spin-off route to
commercialisation much more than licensing and royalty earning mode. Here the study
might establish that IITs have in a way formulated their own strategy to capitalise on
knowledge although the process of knowledge production and transfer may have a
universal reflection prominently visible in the institutions of industrialised economies and
that Indirect Spin-offs do play an important role.
154
Finally, since we noted the developments and characteristics of·an 'entrepreneurial
university' in the form of 'internal transformations', 'interface processes', 'recursive
effects' and 'quasi firms'; the empirical research mayor may not reflect similarities in
IITs. This could be found in the development of 'institutional policies to knowledge
transfer', the rise in 'sponsored research and industrial consultancy assignments', the
establishment of 'technology transfer offices', 'patent cells', 'incubation units' and 'spin
offs'. This comparisOIi might establish if the evidence of the above mentioned dynamic
formations can brand IITs to be entrepreneurial. On the contrary we might see that
traditional role of ARIs to teach and research gains due prominence and recursive effects
are subdued in the Indian context.
The next chapter deals with the knowledge production in IITs giving a detailed
account (although not comprehensive) of the intellectual and infrastructural capabilities of
five IITs namely Delhi, Bombay, Kanpur, Kharagpur and Madras. This study however
does not compare the institutions for their resource generation or assets creation but
focuses on knowledge generation and facilities for the same.
3.6.2 Summary of Hypotheses
During the course of our review of literature and discussion on theoretical perspectives,
we listed a few hypotheses that the empirical study in the forthcoming chapters would test. '\
The summary of all the hypothesis and their guiding force are listed below.
Table 3.3: Summary of Hypothesis
No. Hypothesis The Driving Preslmlption 1 IlTs as such in recent years have come to playa IlTs, we presume, are putting a strong
significant part in the Indian innovation system. foothold in creating a knowledge research They are seen as frontiers of science based base that contributes to the innovation system. innovations pushing them towards enterprising The presumption draws large(v from the institutions to be hllman capital provider and current functioning of IlTs which have a seed-bed of new firms. greater bearing on the historical
developments in IlTs. Further, the adoption of MIT model, its typical characteristics, and assistance offollr nations have a notable role in supplementing the IlTs as an important actor in India 's innovation system
155
2
3
4
5
6
7
At a general level of understanding the mode of knowledge production in fiTs is more like~v to be influenced by Humboldtian values of achieving teaching and research excellence and promotion of open research publications rather than market driven commercialization of research. even though the latter assumes considerable significance.
IITs recognise the importance of open science and scrutinise their efforts to protect their knowledge assets. In other words. knowledge production in fiTs is by and large driven by research publications compared to patents. Also. the importance offilingfor an IPR is well recognised by /ITs in select sectors. This orientation of knowledge production is no way seen to be detrimental to the mode of knowledge transfer in fiTs.
The knowledge production in 'Mode 1 . has been eclipsed by the new mode 'Mode 2' in the five /ITs.
The university-indus try-government related triple helix thesis may be partially applicable to the Indian context.
Modes of knowledge transfer and strengthening of academia-industry relations in fiTs is more likely to be influenced and driven by the conventional routes of consultancy and sponsored research links with industry as compared to Triple Helix influenced mode of ITO based knowledge transfers. In other words the establishment ofTTOs as an intermediate agency internally. and having a pecuniary motivation is unlike(v to playa significant role as a mode of knowledge transfer Mode of knowledge transfer in /ITs is more likely to be manifested in varying forms ranging from conventional sponsored and consultancy to the mode of Triple Helix and rise of entrepreneurial culture. The /ITs are more like(y to adapt the spin-off route to commercialisation of R&D knowledge transfer than the mode of licensing and royalty earning. Thus. the fiTs are moving towards large(y embracing the notion of entreprenellrial unil'ersity
Historically speaking. the underwriters of liT have promoted these important institutions of higher learning as a process of nation building towards achieving technological self-reliance. Advancing knowledge and greater emphasis on excellence in science and engineering graduate teaching are in many ways expression of this national building exercise. In the context of /ITs. we presume that despite the institutional and organisational refornls, and increasing faculty interaction with industry personnel. many faculty and researchers would be less enthusiastic about business partnerships with industry. This could be reasoned in the notion that academic institutions as sources of knowledge have deep rooted institutional values and responsibilities to their operational sphere. Another reason could factor the not so high yielding commercial activities in academia owing to consuming considerable time and often involving considerable risks. Knowledge produced in /ITs is characterised by interdisciplinarity and plurality and it is transient. The knowledge that is being produced in fiTs is done in the context of application. The nature of such associations or linkages as suitable to lOcal flavour and conditions is what developing countries like India should lookfor in their pursuit of creating and nurturing innovations. This is in view of the significant role of sponsored research and industrial consultancy projects in fostering academia-industry linkages as also observed in the organisational culture and practice at /ITs. and understanding the professional aspects of a traditional TTO.
/ITs in recent years have embraced or come to advance and promote the concept of entrepreneurial university in parallel :0 the dominant orientation of teaching and research excellence. This is primari~y due to the evidence of institutional and organisational factors sllch as intellectual property policy. and establishments like technology transfer offices. and incubation units at fiTs.
156