IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa12p61.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The 'third function' of universities and the region: a literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Michaela Trippl
  • Helen Lawton Smith
  • Tanja Sinozic

Abstract

There is a broad and growing literature on the changing role of universities in regional development. What is still missing, however, is a precise understanding of the “third function†of universities in regions. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a nuanced view of the role of universities in regional development. Based on a literature review and a comparison of different conceptual approaches we intend to enrich our knowledge about the multifaceted activities performed by universities at the regional level. Four conceptualisations of the “third function†of universities and regions are considered. In the first, the university “third function†is conceptualised as part of the changing nature of knowledge production and innovation. In this conceptualisation, universities are seen as producers of new types of “Mode 2†knowledge which is trans-disciplinary and generated with a variety of stakeholders in a context of application. In the second, the university is conceptualised as having a changing role in regional economic development. In this view, universities are seen as central in the emergence, growth, and anchoring of local industry and in local knowledge transfer. In the third set of approaches, the university is viewed as having a social and environmental role, as societal beneficiary providing direct services for the region via, for example, training relevant to immediate communities and considering local environmental sustainability. In the fourth, the “third function†is conceptualised as an emergent evolutionary process of interactions arising from differing conditions, actors, operations and outcomes over time. In this view, the “third function†is conceptualised as an outcome of dynamically evolving “Triple Helix†interactions, where overlapping interests, organisations, and networks between academia, government and industry create conditions for new networks and dynamics with changing degrees of determinism over time. Drawing on an analysis of the theoretical and empirical literature, we will highlight that the four approaches outlined above differ strongly with respect to (i) the conceptual explanations they provide for increasing levels of universities’ engagement in regional development; (ii) the specific mechanisms and activities by which universities are seen to contribute to regional growth and innovation; (iii) the identification of potential beneficiaries of such activities; and (iv) the main driving forces and barriers to “third function†activities and related policy implications. Taken together, these approaches allow for a view of universities in regions which captures a broad range of old and new functions, interactions, cumulative processes, actors, unpredictability and contextual specificities in line with an evolutionary view.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaela Trippl & Helen Lawton Smith & Tanja Sinozic, 2012. "The 'third function' of universities and the region: a literature review," ERSA conference papers ersa12p61, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa12/e120821aFinal00063.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    2. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 233-245, Springer.
    3. Dominic Power & Anders Malmberg, 2008. "The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem?," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(2), pages 233-245.
    4. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    5. Peter Arbo & Paul Benneworth, 2007. "Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review," OECD Education Working Papers 9, OECD Publishing.
    6. Jacob, Merle & Lundqvist, Mats & Hellsmark, Hans, 2003. "Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1555-1568, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Kochenkova & Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari, 2016. "Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 407-429, June.
    2. Qiantao Zhang & Niall G. MacKenzie & Dylan Jones-Evans & Robert Huggins, 2016. "Leveraging knowledge as a competitive asset? The intensity, performance and structure of universities’ entrepreneurial knowledge exchange activities at a regional level," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 657-675, October.
    3. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Daniele Biancardi & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo & Federico Biagi, 2019. "Study on Higher Education Institutions and Local Development," JRC Research Reports JRC117272, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Collaboration or funding: lessons from a study of nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 741-777, June.
    5. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    6. Hyejin Jung & Byung-Keun Kim, 2018. "Determinant factors of university spin-off: the case of Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1631-1646, December.
    7. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini & Laura Toschi, 2015. "From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 948-975, December.
    9. Katerina Sideri & Andreas Panagopoulos, 2018. "Setting up a technology commercialization office at a non-entrepreneurial university: an insider’s look at practices and culture," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 953-965, August.
    10. Baldini, Nicola, 2009. "Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1217-1224, October.
    11. Temel, Serdal & Dabić, Marina & Murat Ar, Ilker & Howells, Jeremy & Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Kyriakos Drivas & Andreas Panagopoulos & Stelios Rozakis, 2018. "Instigating entrepreneurship to a university in an adverse entrepreneurial landscape," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 966-985, August.
    13. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel, 2014. "Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1760-1773.
    14. Erdős, Katalin, 2019. "Egyetemi vállalkozások Magyarországon - újragondolva? [University spin-off in Hungary - Rethought?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 305-329.
    15. Sengupta, Abhijit & Ray, Amit S., 2017. "University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 881-897.
    16. Compagnucci, Lorenzo & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2020. "The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    18. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    19. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    20. Cornelia Lawson, 2016. "Putting the Region First: Knowledge Transfer at Universities in Greater Manchester," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: David Audretsch & Erik Lehmann & Michele Meoli & Silvio Vismara (ed.), University Evolution, Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 303-325, Springer.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.