Social sciences research commercialisation: the case of one Australian university

Abstract

Commercialisation is mainly seen as the purview of science, technology, and engineering research. The focus of commercialising research is the inherent characteristics, valorisation, and translation mechanisms of science, technology, and engineering. In Australia, the commercialisation of social sciences research is often not considered or is even discouraged despite its benefits. This thesis argues that the often intangible, but no less economically valuable or impactful, social science research also generates insights that may drive business success and social progress.Collaboration is core to the success of research commercialisation, which can be used to supplement university income and disseminate research results. This research investigated how the stakeholders, who collaborated through university entrepreneurship in one Australian university to commercialise research in the social sciences, managed the competing logics that arose during collaboration. The research question asked: How is collaboration in research commercialisation in the social sciences negotiated in view of the institutional logics of universities, government, industry, and research commercialisation offices? Understanding the practices and strategies of research commercialisation embraced by university-based social scientists and their industry collaborators contributes to the fields of scholarship in university entrepreneurship, institutional logics, stakeholder theory, and triple helix studies.This thesis presents four nested studies that draw together insights from university researchers, industry partners, government officials, and the staff of the research commercialisation office involved in the commercialisation of social science research in the context of one Australian university. Study 1 reviewed the literature systematically to address the question: How does government create a favourable university entrepreneurship ecosystem in Australia through its policies? Using interview data from organisations such as a university, industries, and a research commercialisation office, Studies 2 and 3 addressed the questions: What are the characteristics, impediments and impacts of social sciences research for a university? and How does a university include the social sciences in collaboration where commercial interest is the main focus? Study 4 used within- and cross-case analyses of interview data with academics, industry partners, and research commercialisation office (RCO) staff to investigate the question: How do individual stakeholders collaborate amid competing logics in a social sciences context? Studies 2, 3, and 4 thematically analysed individual and organisational levels of collaboration as the micro-level unit ofanalysis (individuals) was embedded in the macro-level unit of analysis (the university). The findings identify and characterise some of the challenges in commercialising social science research generated by the competing logics of those collaborating. The findings reveal, first, the systemic failure of Australian Government policies on university entrepreneurship due to the mismatch between the top-down policies of governments and university policies. To support university entrepreneurship and research commercialisation, a combination of top-down and bottom-up government and universities policies would fill the gap in policy coverage.The second finding is related to the call for action of this thesis. It implores the stakeholders of research commercialisation to question the common perception of the value of social sciences research and reframe the understanding of social sciences research commercialisation in a more balanced and nuanced way, keeping in mind that university missions cover social as well as economic development. During collaboration, when the repertoire of behaviours and initiatives from their logics were not sufficient to achieve goals and sustain the collaboration, organisations and individuals adopted elements from other logics. Institutional logics are not rigid, and behaviours can be modified to reach shared goals. While the challenge of competing logics can be alleviated, the advancement of social sciences research commercialisation is hindered by undervaluing its benefits. This thesis suggests that the values of social sciences research commercialisation are emphasised by the social impacts they create, not by the financial return.The third finding was that competing logics can be alleviated through shared goals and adaptation of others’ culture and practice. Engagement may build the trust and commitment needed to lessen competing logics and thus influence the strategies used by individuals and organisations in addressing the competing logics. Moreover, the research found that the strategies used by the university involved in commercialising social science research adhere to university dominant logics in the organisation. The fourth finding indicates that individuals can influence the logic of organisations by creating new practices and by shaping the culture. The fifth findings show that research commercialisation offices are instrumental in mediating between the clashing cultures andpractices of academic researchers and their industry partners and can be considered as a fourth helix in university entrepreneurship interactions.The thesis extends knowledge regarding university, government, and industry collaboration, particularly about entrepreneurship in universities, adds to the discourse on social sciences research commercialisation, identifies strategies to address competing logics, and proposes that research commercialisation offices could be regarded as a fourth helix. This thesis will assist policymakers and participants in social sciences research commercialisation to manage changes and develop strategies to achieve social, research, and financial universities missions.