No Cover Image

Journal article 417 views

Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach

Alessio Ishizaka, David Pickernell Orcid Logo, Shuangfa Huang Orcid Logo, Julienne Marie Senyard

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Volume: 26, Issue: 6, Pages: 1389 - 1409

Swansea University Author: David Pickernell Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1108/ijebr-01-2020-0028

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and ranking, but more importantly, it identifies specific groupings or strategic profiles of universities defined by...

Full description

Published in: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
ISSN: 1355-2554
Published: Emerald 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa61267
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2022-09-19T09:03:17Z
last_indexed 2023-01-13T19:21:56Z
id cronfa61267
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2022-10-12T15:48:38.9324988</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>61267</id><entry>2022-09-19</entry><title>Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>913bd73da00d7df4f5038f6f144b235e</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0912-095X</ORCID><firstname>David</firstname><surname>Pickernell</surname><name>David Pickernell</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2022-09-19</date><deptcode>BBU</deptcode><abstract>Purpose &#x2013; The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and ranking, but more importantly, it identifies specific groupings or strategic profiles of universities defined by different combinations and strengths of the individual KT activities from which the overall rankings are derived. Previous research, concentrating on entrepreneurial universities, shows that individual knowledge transfer (KT) activities vary substantially among UK universities. The broad portfolio of universities&#x2019;KT activities, however, remains under explored, creating gaps in terms of the relative strength, range, focus and combination of these activities, and the degree to which there aredistinct university strategic KT profiles. By examining KT activities and grouping universities into KT &#x201C;types&#x201D;, this research allows universities and policymakers to better develop and measure clearer KT-strategies.Design/methodology/approach &#x2013; The present study applied the Preference Ranking Organization Method for the Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE) to rank universities based on their portfolio of KT activities. It utilised data from the 2015&#x2013;2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey dataset.Findings &#x2013; Findings show that universities differ substantially in their portfolios of KT activities. By using PROMETHEE, a new ranking of universities is generated, based on their KT portfolio. This paper also identifies four distinct types or groups of universities based on the diversity and intensity of their KT activities: Ambidextrous, broad, focused and indifferent.Originality/value &#x2013; The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature, and more specificallyentrepreneurial activities of universities through new knowledge generated concerning university KT activity. The research extends the existing literature on university archetypes (including those concerned with the Entrepreneurial University) and rankings using a new technique that allows for more detailed analysis of the range of university KT activities. By applying the PROMETHEE approach, results illustrate a more nuanced definition of university KT activities than before, by simultaneously evaluating their overall strength, range, focus and combination, allowing us to identify the universities&#x2019; strategic profiles based on their KT portfolios. Implications of the findings for key stakeholders include a potential need for government higher education policymakers to take into account the different mixes of university archetypes in a region when considering how best to support higher education and its role in direct and indirect entrepreneurship promotion throughregional policy goals</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &amp;amp; Research</journal><volume>26</volume><journalNumber>6</journalNumber><paginationStart>1389</paginationStart><paginationEnd>1409</paginationEnd><publisher>Emerald</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1355-2554</issnPrint><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>13</publishedDay><publishedMonth>8</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-08-13</publishedDate><doi>10.1108/ijebr-01-2020-0028</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Business</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>BBU</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2022-10-12T15:48:38.9324988</lastEdited><Created>2022-09-19T09:58:45.9482809</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Management - Business Management</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Alessio</firstname><surname>Ishizaka</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>David</firstname><surname>Pickernell</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0912-095X</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Shuangfa</firstname><surname>Huang</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5867-3521</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Julienne Marie</firstname><surname>Senyard</surname><order>4</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2022-10-12T15:48:38.9324988 v2 61267 2022-09-19 Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach 913bd73da00d7df4f5038f6f144b235e 0000-0003-0912-095X David Pickernell David Pickernell true false 2022-09-19 BBU Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and ranking, but more importantly, it identifies specific groupings or strategic profiles of universities defined by different combinations and strengths of the individual KT activities from which the overall rankings are derived. Previous research, concentrating on entrepreneurial universities, shows that individual knowledge transfer (KT) activities vary substantially among UK universities. The broad portfolio of universities’KT activities, however, remains under explored, creating gaps in terms of the relative strength, range, focus and combination of these activities, and the degree to which there aredistinct university strategic KT profiles. By examining KT activities and grouping universities into KT “types”, this research allows universities and policymakers to better develop and measure clearer KT-strategies.Design/methodology/approach – The present study applied the Preference Ranking Organization Method for the Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE) to rank universities based on their portfolio of KT activities. It utilised data from the 2015–2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey dataset.Findings – Findings show that universities differ substantially in their portfolios of KT activities. By using PROMETHEE, a new ranking of universities is generated, based on their KT portfolio. This paper also identifies four distinct types or groups of universities based on the diversity and intensity of their KT activities: Ambidextrous, broad, focused and indifferent.Originality/value – The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature, and more specificallyentrepreneurial activities of universities through new knowledge generated concerning university KT activity. The research extends the existing literature on university archetypes (including those concerned with the Entrepreneurial University) and rankings using a new technique that allows for more detailed analysis of the range of university KT activities. By applying the PROMETHEE approach, results illustrate a more nuanced definition of university KT activities than before, by simultaneously evaluating their overall strength, range, focus and combination, allowing us to identify the universities’ strategic profiles based on their KT portfolios. Implications of the findings for key stakeholders include a potential need for government higher education policymakers to take into account the different mixes of university archetypes in a region when considering how best to support higher education and its role in direct and indirect entrepreneurship promotion throughregional policy goals Journal Article International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &amp; Research 26 6 1389 1409 Emerald 1355-2554 13 8 2020 2020-08-13 10.1108/ijebr-01-2020-0028 COLLEGE NANME Business COLLEGE CODE BBU Swansea University 2022-10-12T15:48:38.9324988 2022-09-19T09:58:45.9482809 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Management - Business Management Alessio Ishizaka 1 David Pickernell 0000-0003-0912-095X 2 Shuangfa Huang 0000-0001-5867-3521 3 Julienne Marie Senyard 4
title Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
spellingShingle Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
David Pickernell
title_short Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
title_full Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
title_fullStr Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
title_full_unstemmed Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
title_sort Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach
author_id_str_mv 913bd73da00d7df4f5038f6f144b235e
author_id_fullname_str_mv 913bd73da00d7df4f5038f6f144b235e_***_David Pickernell
author David Pickernell
author2 Alessio Ishizaka
David Pickernell
Shuangfa Huang
Julienne Marie Senyard
format Journal article
container_title International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &amp; Research
container_volume 26
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1389
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 1355-2554
doi_str_mv 10.1108/ijebr-01-2020-0028
publisher Emerald
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Management - Business Management{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Management - Business Management
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and ranking, but more importantly, it identifies specific groupings or strategic profiles of universities defined by different combinations and strengths of the individual KT activities from which the overall rankings are derived. Previous research, concentrating on entrepreneurial universities, shows that individual knowledge transfer (KT) activities vary substantially among UK universities. The broad portfolio of universities’KT activities, however, remains under explored, creating gaps in terms of the relative strength, range, focus and combination of these activities, and the degree to which there aredistinct university strategic KT profiles. By examining KT activities and grouping universities into KT “types”, this research allows universities and policymakers to better develop and measure clearer KT-strategies.Design/methodology/approach – The present study applied the Preference Ranking Organization Method for the Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE) to rank universities based on their portfolio of KT activities. It utilised data from the 2015–2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey dataset.Findings – Findings show that universities differ substantially in their portfolios of KT activities. By using PROMETHEE, a new ranking of universities is generated, based on their KT portfolio. This paper also identifies four distinct types or groups of universities based on the diversity and intensity of their KT activities: Ambidextrous, broad, focused and indifferent.Originality/value – The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature, and more specificallyentrepreneurial activities of universities through new knowledge generated concerning university KT activity. The research extends the existing literature on university archetypes (including those concerned with the Entrepreneurial University) and rankings using a new technique that allows for more detailed analysis of the range of university KT activities. By applying the PROMETHEE approach, results illustrate a more nuanced definition of university KT activities than before, by simultaneously evaluating their overall strength, range, focus and combination, allowing us to identify the universities’ strategic profiles based on their KT portfolios. Implications of the findings for key stakeholders include a potential need for government higher education policymakers to take into account the different mixes of university archetypes in a region when considering how best to support higher education and its role in direct and indirect entrepreneurship promotion throughregional policy goals
published_date 2020-08-13T04:19:59Z
_version_ 1763754324085702656
score 11.012678

Similar Items