The OECD defines social capital as networks with shared rules/values, and understandings that facilitate cooperation between groups and within.’ We may think of networks as real-world links between individuals or groups in this context (OECD, 2019). Think about friends ‘ networks, family networks, and former colleagues’ networks and so on. We have less clear common principles, beliefs, and understanding than our social networks. Sociologists often speak about norms as the arbitrary and essentially unquestioned rules of society. Until they are violated, norms and understandings may not be evident. For example, if adults attack a child, they violate standards that protect children against harm. Values may be more questionable; societies frequently discuss whether they change their values. Nevertheless, ideals, such as respect for the health and safety of people, are a significant cornerstone in every social group. Take these networks together and build trust so that people can work together.
The importance of developing cognitive and relational social capital concerning PROs at an individual, organizational and alliance level should be discussed by businesses in order to establish solid collaboration and reduce their vulnerability to social capital alone. In fact, this research seeks to better understand the interplay of social capital dimensions (Andriani, 2013).
In England and the other Western countries, the partnership is dominant in education policy and practice but remains relatively unresearched, particularly as to what supports a partnership. The research followed a realistic approach and employed many forms of data collection, including collaboration findings, semi-structuring interviews and documentary analysis. The findings focus on partnership working aspects and dimensions of social equity that enable and maintain partnerships, including multiple collaborative layers, networks and networks, high confidence and shared standards and values between key players. The analysis shows that the disputed concept of social capital provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding sustainable development in educational partnerships (Dhillon, 2009).
Partnerships between the university and industry emphasize the conversion of expertise into commercially used goods and processes(Tamer, Dereli and Sa?lam, 2014).
There has been a strategic value in terms of the impact of knowledge transfer on trade success and sustainable competitive advantage. The challenge also includes a strategic one. Formulating a knowledge strategy with a clear anticipatory view of what the future implicitly holds means asking about what is not only known but also necessary to know. Furthermore, a rapidly changing global competitive environment and an increase in technological advances have to force organizations, which offer pipelines of ideas from outside of the firm, to secure knowledge partnerships. For companies seeking specialized expertise in research. Universities are now also required to “take advantage of the importance of their knowledge base” and to support public interest through research and education. The strategic goal of this “third mission” focuses on knowledge transfer between universities and businesses. Take University Research Parks, for example, these are real estate-based companies that accommodate and promote the growth of firms in the presence, ownership and / or governance of a University. Governments actively encourage knowledge transfer initiatives in the university and industry, as marketing research can boost economic growth in the first place(Robertson, McCarthy and Pitt, 2019).
The image above declares the difference between the goals of industry and academic institutions. The goals of the academia are below, and the industry on top. Social capital, in its best form, both relational and cognitive, tries to bridge the gap. Universities should nurture their talent policies for the same. Collaboration between the universities and industry calls for careful management and can bring many advantages. They include a two-way stream of ideas: results can be made available for industry and can be used to stimulate research. Sometimes, technically advanced problems lead, for example, to new science questions (World Economic Forum, 2019).
Such industrial collaboration can also be an important means by which fundamental research can diversify its revenue streams. But if universities are to gain the rich benefits of deep co-operation, they may have to modify their staff incentives and arrangements–including tenure and support criteria (Gorda, 2018).
Marketing is considered at the institutional level as a prime example to produce academic impact since the results of academic research are immediately and measurably acceptable to the market. It is also widely accepted, simultaneously, that the existence of social capital in which organizations are partnering with universities are affecting processes of inter-organizational knowledge transfer such as between the University and the business. Literature has shown that social capital is a enhancing part of organization knowledge transfer or KT as the average product of human resources derived from a network of structural, relational and intelligent linkages. In other words, the value you can derive from who you know and how you know others are social capital. The opportunities and resources available to a person or an organization, offer these connections meaning. Social capital makes different kinds of information easier to be available, incorporated and developed. For example, strong relationship networks would provide better opportunities for communication in the exchange of tacit knowledge and to enhance partners ‘ absorptive ability. The increased engagement can lead to higher performance in innovation. In recent years, researchers and managers have focused more on knowledge transfer within university-industry collaborations in particular. Extensive research shows that organizations that can transfer information effectively are more productive than those which are less able to do so. A renewed drive towards regional development strategies to drive sustainable economic growth has further paved the way for greater emphasis on the transfer of knowledge and three-fold initiatives from universities and industries. Such programs are known to be important tools for establishing processes for development (Hatakenaka, 2015).
Practically speaking, examples of the transfer of know-how from university-industry are especially demonstrated in high-tech strategic industries such as pharmaceuticals or biotechnology (e.g., the “gene-splicing” rDNA technique), which has transferred university-backed research expertise to industry for use and commercial use. Such transfers may often occur through licensing of technologies which is a major and growing phase of the process of innovation (MacCarthy & Ruckman 2017). The premise is to promote accelerate regional learning and alignment by spilling knowledge from university to industry.
A mutual lack of understanding concerning working practices and expectations has been identified as a barrier to the collaboration of university-industry and the building of cognitive social capital (Lang and Ramirez, 2015).
Social cognitive capital refers to common interpretations, common language, and codes, and shared narrative between parties. It is easier to learn from one another when companies have common goals and processes. Social cognitive capital was divided into two categories: shared objectives and shared culture.
Relational social capital The focus of Relational Social capital is relationship closeness, trust and “account created and leveraged through relationships.”
Relational social capital: This term describes personal contacts established through previous contacts that concern reciprocal respect, friendship, expectations, and reputations. Experience in collaboration has been shown to minimize barriers to collaboration between academics and business partners, which show the utility of developing personal relationships through the existence of previous collaborations. Developing confidence through personal relationships can reduce collaborative partners ‘ uncertainty and increase their willingness to be open, to share information and resources (Al-Tabbaa & Ankrah, 2016). In addition, building confidence with partners can reduce the risk of opportunistic behavior. Conversely, it can be damaging to inter-organizational cooperation if trust reaches a very high level. Conflicts and information decrease, which can reduce the creation of new knowledge, are less necessary to control actors(Aguado Benedí, 2002).
In a nutshell, tensions in collaboration between universities and industry can preclude successful cooperation between companies and PROs in research alliances and prevent innovative outcomes. The paper examines the wise use of a longitudinal case survey by six case companies which comprise two contrasting research alliances to mitigate challenges in companies and PROs and to increase innovative performance in research alliances (Archer-Brown & Kietzmann, 2018).
References
Aguado Benedí, P. (2002). Knowledge management in the university-industry collaboration. Revista Española De Documentación Científica, 25(3)Robertson, J., McCarthy, I., and Pitt, L. (2019). Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategies: a comparative positioning framework. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), pp.461-472.
World Economic Forum. (2019). 3 ways to nurture collaboration between universities and industry. [online] Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/3-ways-to-nurture-collaboration-between-universities-and-industry/ [Accessed 3 Nov. 2019].
Al-Tabbaa, O., & Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate “engineered” university–Industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 1–15. Andriani, L. (2013). Social capital: A road map of theoretical frameworks and empirical limitations.
Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Technovation asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2–3), 50–65.
Archer-Brown, C., & Kietzmann, J. (2018). Strategic knowledge management and enterprise social media. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1288–1309.
McCarthy, I. P, & Ruckman, K. (2017). Licensing speed: its determinants and payoffs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 46, 52-66.
Gorda, A. (2018). Social capital, spiritual capital, human capital, and financial capital in the management of child welfare institutions. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities.
Hatakenaka, S. (2015). University-Industry Partnership Reconsidered: Three Lessons. International Higher Education, (39).
Lang, T. and Ramirez, R. (2015). Scenario Cranes to Build New Cognitive Social Capital. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Tamer, ?., Dereli, B. and Sa?lam, M. (2014). Unorthodox Forms of Capital in Organizations: Positive Psychological Capital, Intellectual Capital and Social Capital. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, pp.963-972.
