| Abstrakt: |
Successful collaborations between universities and companies work only in a few individual cases. In general, the diversity of cultures prevents the implementation of interactive knowledge transfer and actually reduces the potential innovation performance. This finding contrasts the study of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published in 1996 on „The Knowledge-Based Economy“ (OECD, 1996) that stated clearly: „Knowledge is now recognised as the driver of productivity and economic growth, leading to a new focus on the role of information, technology and learning in economic performance.“ Regarding the reasons for such a collaborative deficit more closely it becomes apparent that not a lack of purpose, benefits or requirements are the cause for it, but rather different ways of dealing with it. This results primarily from a different cultural conditionality in universities and companies. However, the resulting question still has to be discussed how the science system can contribute to knowledge transfer, in order to disseminate knowledge and to provide inputs for problem solving and innovation. Especially the process of knowledge transfer has been prominently discussed during the last decade after neoliberal tendencies in politics, particularly in North America and the European countries, demanded the economic benefits of science and its institutions (c.g. Mansfield, 1991). While the responsibility for the creation and dissemination of new knowledge typically lies with leading research institutions, such as universities, the transfer of this knowledge into economic value is performed outside of universities. Since universities increasingly depend on additional funds for new and expensive research, research groups are more and more considered to be 'quasi firms' - a process that already has been described as "the invention of the entrepreneurial university" (Etzkowitz, 2003). But as it turns out more and more, the prospects for achieving these objectives are dominated by the question of a common cultural understanding between the various actors in the knowledge transfer process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
