Where Lie the Similarities and Differences?: A Comparison of University and Industry Partners in Collaboration

By Lynne Siemens1, INKE Research Group1

University of Victoria

University–industry partnerships are common on the science side of campus where ways to work together are well understood. This is less so in the humanities even as these types of collaborations are being funded by granting agencies and...

Listed in Article

Description

University–industry partnerships are common on the science side of campus where ways to work together are well understood. This is less so in the humanities even as these types of collaborations are being funded by granting agencies and governments. For these partnerships to build a foundation for success, common understandings around issues of the nature of collaboration, benefits, challenges, measures of success and outcomes need to exist. Using Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) as a study case, this research examines a humanities-based partnership to understand similarities and differences in partners’ perspectives around these factors. Overall, the university and industry partners have common understandings of the nature of collaboration, the potential challenges facing the collaboration, and desired outcomes and success factors. However, there are some differences that must be navigated to ensure collaboration success. These focus on the benefits, the role of industry partners, need for tenure and promotion for researchers, and the type of resources that each can provide. While the partnership is in early stages of research, it has had the opportunity to learn about each other and differing perspectives by working and meeting together for over five years. This is the first step to creating a foundation of trust upon which a successful collaboration can be built.

Tags

Notes

Original publication: Siemens, Lynne, and the INKE Research Group. 2020. “Where Lie the Similarities and Differences?: A Comparison of University and Industry Partners in Collaboration.” Pop! Public. Open. Participatory. 2: n.p. DOI:10.48404/pop.2020.10