Triple translation: academic and managerial discourses of knowledge transfer policy in a new university in Scotland

There is more than what meets the eye: university preparation for the socio-economic impact requirement in research assessment exercise 2020 in Hong Kong

“…university rankings) that use metrics and calculable technologies to assess research (c.f., Marginson, 2010). It was university management that transformed the peer review exercise into an evaluation regime that appropriated the 16 KT performance indicators laid down by the UGC as the crucial standard and benchmark for defining impact; therefore, certain types of impactful research would inevitably be prioritised over others (Wersun, 2010, 2011; Shore and Wright, 1999). Such an appropriation could be considered as the university's attempt to (1) dispel the accusation of arbitrariness and to keep the monetary, time and opportunity cost within appropriate limits; and (2) facilitate management to maximise the RAE performance and its associated prestige (Li and Li, 2021a, b).…”

“…The significance attached to the government-issued KT/KE policies, aimed at enhancing knowledge commercialisation and technology transfer and encouraging research for non-commercial, social and civic purposes, has led to a third mission of universities, with Knowledge Transfer/Exchange sitting alongside Teaching and Research in many higher education contexts (e.g. Tang and Chau, 2020;Wersun, 2010Wersun, , 2011.…”

“…The distorting effects can be generally summarised as follows: (1) increased commercialisation of university knowledge and an overriding emphasis on policy making for economic competitiveness; (2) more intense competition between researchers and a strong tendency towards homogeneity of research and a loss of autonomy; and (3) further consolidation of the existing hierarchies of rated entities (institutions and individual academics) (e.g. M€ unch, 2014;Watermeyer, 2012Watermeyer, , 2014Wersun, 2010Wersun, , 2011.…”

The role of spatial and non-spatial forms of proximity in knowledge transfer

“…Knowledge transfer can be defined at a general level as the push for increased interactions between universities, the economy and society and for knowledge to be more "useful" (Wersun, 2010). van Gils (2010) has stated that no shared classification of knowledge transfer channels exists, and studies have produced contrasting results as 468 EJIM 19,4 to their importance.…”

Ambivalencia institucional e identidad liminal: la encrucijada del investigador emprendedor

“…Un análisis de los artículos con mayor citación permitió identificar algunos aspectos de reiterada preocupación por parte de los investigadores que han observado la transferencia de conocimiento desde distintas lentes epistémicas, para apreciar ángulos relacionados con los siguientes aspectos: factores determinantes del proceso (Lam, 2011;Guerrero y Urbano, 2012;Ankrah, Burgess, Grimshaw, y Shaw, 2013;Uygur, 2013;Merchán, Valmaseda, y Fernández, 2015;Gerbin y Drnovsek, 2016), el efecto de la transferencia (Zhou, Siu, y Wang, 2010;Alessandro, Quaglione, y Scarpinato, 2012;Lakpetch y Lorsuwannarat, 2012;Grimpe y Hussinger, 2013;Barjak, Es-Sadki, y Arundel, 2014;Guerrero, Cunningham, y Urbano, 2015), los distintos medios o canales por los cuales se realiza la transferencia (Perkmann y Walsh, 2007;Eom y Lee, 2009;Crespi, D'Este, Fontana, y Geunad, 2011;Arza, De Fuentes, Vazquez, y Dutrénit, 2015), así como las barreras que limitan la dinámica transferencial (De Wit-de Vries, Dolfsma, Van der Windt, y Gerkema , 2019), las capacidades requeridas por las organizaciones para participar en la interacción (Davis, 2009;Torres y Jasso, 2019) y las disposiciones a nivel de política estatal que promueven el intercambio (Wersun, 2010;Berbegal, 2018), entre otros. La relación de los trabajos mencionados previamente trasciende la pretensión de discutir en profundidad las diferentes vertientes que existen dentro del área temática de la transferencia, por cuanto ésta tarea será abordada en el próximo capítulo.…”