A CASE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COOPERATION

Hasan Hüseyin Ciritcioğlu, Murat Aydın, Süleyman Şenol
1.524 287

Abstract


The goal of this study was to analyze the situation of the cooperation between University and Industry in Düzce, Turkey. Target population of the study was the firms that related only woodworking industry. There were 242 firms according to the registry of Düzce Chamber of Industry and Commerce. But some of them were only the end product seller instead of manufacturer or supplier. Because of this reason, population of this study was determined as 154.  And this was the only constraint of the study. 91 of 154 firms were surveyed by the face to face method with 41-question survey. According to the results it can be said that Industry knows very little about opportunities and has little concern with cooperation. Also, miscommunication may be the one of the main reason of weak cooperation. In this regard, Technology Faculties are able to strengthen this weak cooperation due to its on-site education syllabus.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Zhang G, Sun Z, He Y, An S. 2010. Analysis of Industry-University-Research Institute Combination Intended for the Technical Innovation of Wood Processing Enterprises, Forestry Machinery and Woodworking Equipment, 2010-03.

Congqin D, Changhong L. 2007. Comparative Study on Enterprises-Universities-Researches Cooperation Model in Typical Countries and Regions. Sci-Technology and Management, 45(5): 92-96.

Lööf H, Broström A., “Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?”, The Journal Technology Transfer, 33:73–90, 2008.

Zheng L, Rongkai F, Weiguang W. 2008. Industry-University-Research Cooperative Innovation Mode Study Based on Industry Chain[J]. Science & Technology and Economy, 21(1): 22-25.

Fontana R, Geuna A and Matt M., Firm size and openness: The driving force of university– industry collaboration. In: Caloghirou, Y., Constantelou, A. & Vonortas N. S. (Eds.), Knowledge flows in European industry: Mechanisms and policy implications. London: Routledge. 2005.

Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT. 2003. Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.

Jacobsson S. 2002. Universities and industrial transformation. An interpretative and selective literature study with a special emphasis on Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 29(5), 345–365.

Etzkowitz H. 2003. Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-indusry-government relations. Social Science Information 42(3): 293-337.

Machlup F. 1962. The Production and Disturbiion of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shuilong T. 2011. Development and Evolution of Industry-University-Research Cooperative Innovation Mode in China , Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, vol.02, n.02, p.69 – 76.

Harhoff D. 1999. Firm formation and regional spillovers. The Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 27–55.

Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT. 2001. Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 87-98.

Zhangbao W, Yicai Z. 2000. Industry-University Cooperation: Mode, Trend, Problem and Solution[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 17(9):115-117.

Yanyan L, Bing Y, Juan D. 2004. Industry-University-Research Cooperation Mode Classification and Selection Ideas[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, (10): 98-99.

Caloghirou Y, Tsakanikas A, Vonortas NS. 2001. University-Industry Cooperation in the Context of the European Framework Programmes, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 153-161.

Fontana R, Geuna A, Matt M. 2006. Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling, Research Policy 35, 309-323.

Rashid H. 2009. University-industry Cooperation: Problems and Prospects in Case of Pakistan. Proceedings 2nd CBRC, Lahore, Pakistan November 14.

Chang DY, Chu PY. 2009. University-Industry Cooperation in Action: A Case Study of the Integrated Internship Program (IIP) in Taiwan, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 21:1, 6-16

Yamane T., Temel Örnekleme Yöntemleri, Literatür Yayıncılık Dağıtım, Istanbul, 2001.

Mohnen P, Hoareau C. 2003. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24, 133–145.

Cohen WM, Nelson R, Walsh J. 2002a. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48, 1–23.

Arundel A and Geuna A. 2004. Proximity and the use of public science by Innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13, 559–580.

Laursen K, Salter A. 2004. Searching low and high: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy 33, 1201–1215.

Veugelers R. and Cassiman B., “R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23: 355– 379, 2005.

Levinson, H., “Conflicts That Plague Family Businesses”, Harward Business Review, March 1971

Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J. and Chua, J.H., “Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges”, Family Business Review, 10:1, 1-36, 1997.

Sharma, P., “An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future”, Family Business Review, 17:1, 1-35, 2004.

Lyon DE, Beall FC and Galligan WL. 1995. The crisis in wood science and technology education Forest Products Journal 45(6): 23.

Likar B. 2008. The Influence of Innovation, Technological and Research Processes on the Performance of Slovenia’s Woodworking Industry. Wood Research 53 (4): 115-120.

Ekti, E., “Industrial Forestry Product Sectoral Report Series IV”, East Marmara Development Agency Düzce Province Investment Support Office, 2013.

Cohen WM, Florida R, Randazzese L,Walsh, J. 1998. In: Noll, R. (Ed.), Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance, in Challenges to the University, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Trcek D. 2006. Managing Information Systems Security and Privacy. Springer. Heidelberg: Pp. 141-149

Kneller R. 2003. University-Industry Cooperation and Technology Transfer in Japan Compared with the United States: Another Reason for Japan's Economic Malaise. U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 24: 329-449.

Mariti P, Smiley R. 1983. Co-operative agreements and the organisation of industry. Journal of Industrial Economics 38 (2), 183–198.

Beise M, Stahl H. 1999. Public research and industrial innovation in Germany. Research Policy 28, 397–422

Mansfield E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 26, 1–12.

Severson JA. 2005. Models of University-industry Cooperation, [Online] Available at: https://www.sangakukan.jp/journal/journal_contents/2005/02/articles/002-06/002-06_e_article.html

Lee YS. 1996. Technology transfer' and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration, Research Policy 25: 843-863.

Meyer-Krahmer F, Schmoch U. 1998. Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27, 835–852.

Barbu MC. 2013. Changes in the European Wood Science Education, Pro Ligno 9(4):28-38.