Historically, higher education institutions have engaged in a variety of research partnerships with external groups and organizations. These external constituents include private businesses and corporations, government agencies, and social and community service organizations. According to Teresa I. Campbell and Sheila Slaughter (1999), the federal government embarked upon providing money to postsecondary institutions during the decade of the Second World War. When federal monies decreased over the next four decades, universities increasingly sought funding for research and projects from private sources. This search has led to an increase in the partnerships formed with private businesses and corporations (Matthews & Norgaard, 1984; Stankiewicz, 1986; Webster & Etzkowitz, 1998). Although higher education institutions have provided constant and established environments with limited external interactions, the need to develop alternative funding sources (e.g., establishing industry partnerships) has transformed many universities and colleges into organizations that recognize that importance of change processes effected by the environment.

Partnerships may be evidenced in a variety of ways, including collaboration on research projects, research centers and institutes, and industrial parks. Joint business ventures are also a result from these partnerships (an interesting one for "nonprofit" universities). Research and popular literature contains several examples of these partnerships:

• At North Carolina State University’s "Centennial Campus", several corporations lease research center space, as well as being able to offer college credit hours for students working on company projects (Marcus, 1999). Centennial Campus is described as a collaboration of " . . . university, corporate and government R&D facilities and business incubators . . ." (NC State University Centennial Campus, 2000).

Corporate partnerships with black colleges and universities have also increased during the past decade. Spelman College has developed several partnerships with corporations in order to promote research, development and campus improvement efforts (Clarke, 1998). The development of relationships with external constituents of universities has also been examined on a global scale (Bellini & Zollo, 1997; Mitra & Formica, 1997). Additionally, Diana Hicks and Kimberly Hamilton (1999) have also noted an increase in the number of collaborations between corporations and postsecondary institutions when publishing research articles.

Corporations and businesses also receive various benefits from these partnerships. The ability to engage in advanced research at universities and colleges (and, therefore, limit the demanding responsibilities of research and development at corporate headquarters or branch locations), as well as gaining access to potential employees (from a pool of students and of faculty members), may be considered as advantages for the corporate sphere.

Partnerships play a significant role in the change processes of universities. Nevertheless, Daniel J. Rowley, Herman D. Lujan and Michael G. Dolence address the difficulty of encouraging change amongst faculty members and administrators, primarily due to the past trend of limited interaction with external constituents on the part of universities (1997). However, the authors suggest that contact with external constituents provides an important opportunity for staff members with reservations to understand the importance of actively engaging in change and transformation.

The changing nature of higher education institutions also necessitates the development of partnerships with external constituents, particularly corporations and businesses. According to Marvin W. Peterson and David D. Dill, this transformation is exemplified in the transition of higher education institutions (1997). This transition involves the development of universities and colleges into "postsecondary knowledge industries," as opposed to basic learning institutions. As competition in education increases - from other higher education institutions, as well as from government agencies and corporate businesses — universities must transition from simply educating students to "producing" knowledge. The university environment is expanding beyond the context of teaching students and conducting research for field knowledge. As previously noted, higher education is transforming into an industry that produces, distributes and applies knowledge (Peterson & Dill, 1997). Paradoxically, to remain competitive in this knowledge industry, universities need to develop partnerships with the external environment and its constituents — specifically private corporations and businesses (Peterson, 1995; Rowley et al., 1997). Peterson points out that " . . . a growing array of these external business and governmental organizations are potential competitors for or collaborators with the university’s primary graduate and professional education and research functions, not just sources of support for or clients of our products and services." (1995, p. 149). Furthermore, Rowley et al. stress the important of "effective adaptation" within higher education by " . . . realigning the college or university with its emergent environment." (1997, p. 13).

The complex nature of these relationships and partnerships dictates the necessity of guidelines. A poorly organized relationship may lead to a variety of misunderstandings, abuses of power, and disappointment. For example, a common concern with university-corporate relationships involves the handling of patents when product development is involved (especially when this development may lead to significant change in the university and/or corporate sphere). In this type of situation, ownership disagreements may occur as to whether the patent will be jointly held, as well as the amount of royalties received from the patented product. Moreover, Campbell and Slaughter acknowledge the motivation to develop partnerships, yet " . . . there is neither a large body of university policy nor professional customs and norms that guide and shape entrepreneurial norms . . ." (1999).

Resistance by university members against change and transformation, through the union of partnerships, also indicates the need for guidelines. As mentioned, this resistance on the part of faculty members and administrators needs to be addressed. Resistance may be due, in part, to fear of the unknown. In this situation, the "unknown" is the effect of external partnerships on the change process. Campbell and Slaughter (1999) mention that "non-involved" faculty (those who have limited or no interaction with external constituents) generally exhibit a significant degree of resistance toward corporate partnerships. Guidelines may play an important role in addressing this fear and misunderstanding. This paper will provide a description of various guidelines to be used by postsecondary institutions when navigating external relationships.

Guidelines may be developed and used by a wide variety of postsecondary institutions. However, due to the broad nature of higher education and the corporate sphere, the primary focus for this discussion will be upon research universities and private corporations.

Furthermore, the individuals to whom these guidelines will be most useful are university administrators and faculty members. Although all university members have a certain degree of interaction with external constituents, administrators and faculty members frequently engage in corporate partnerships in order to fund research projects, centers and institutes, and other related activities. Once again, due to the unique aspects of these partnerships, as well as the potential for abuse of power and misunderstandings, faculty and administrators may utilize guidelines to navigate the transformation process through the development of corporate partnerships.

GUIDELINES

As funding from postsecondary institutions and government agencies for research projects and activities decreases, as previously discussed, faculty members and administrators increasingly seek financial resources from the corporate sphere. However, this may lead to concerns about commitment conflicts. Members of the university community may interpret these partnerships as a form of disloyalty to the university - and, possibly, toward the larger field of higher education (Campbell & Slaughter, 1999). Therefore, it is critical that the postsecondary institution supports the staff and faculty members who will be engaging in these partnerships. For example, public announcements of partnerships by university deans and department chairs demonstrate institutional support. Incorporating the development and support of the partnership into the reward systems for faculty and staff members is also an integral process.

Long-term cultural support in the academic field may also be developed by including the process of developing research partnerships in the education and training of graduate students. Although many universities currently offer seminars and/or courses on techniques for writing grants in order to obtain funding for research projects, little forma information is offered about guidelines and protocol for establishing corporate relationships. Graduate student exposure to the important of research partnerships will ensure a future academic culture supportive of these relationships with the external environment.

Following this guideline, it is equally important that the university staff members do not engage in partnerships that may hurt the institution, thus decreasing or eliminating the institutional support. Partnerships should also be developed in order to enhance scholarly research that is related to faculty members’ field of expertise, as opposed to abusing these relationships in order to make a profit.

Jana B. Matthews and Rolf Norgaard describe the "evolution of partnerships" as entailing " . . . subtle interactions that may not be immediately apparent." (1984, p. 166). According to the authors, higher education staff members need to recognize that these partnerships develop out of " . . . personal contacts, consulting relationships, current or prior research relationships, and contact with graduate students who may enter the business community or become faculty." (p. 166). An understanding of the unique nature of these relationships may be developed by interacting and working with other university departments that have alliances with the corporate sphere, such as alumni affairs, corporate relations and development offices, fundraising efforts, career services offices, and other academic departments with partnerships. When embarking upon partnerships, faculty and staff members with limited or no experience with corporate partnerships, in particular, should contact experienced individuals at their universities for critical guidance.

Bruce A. Loessin advocates increasing the participation of faculty members in fundraising and resource development, as "[f]aculty are the ones who must field the funded programs." (1997, p. 317). As faculty and administrators will be utilizing the funding provided by corporate sponsors for research projects, it is integral that these individuals by identified and play a role in developing the relationship. Partnerships will be beneficial ones when faculty and staff are actively engaged in this process.

Matthews and Norgaard discuss the importance of negotiating contracts when postsecondary institutions and corporations engage in research partnerships (1984). As any joint research and/or business venture will necessarily include several key staff members, as well as significant amounts of money, the authors stress that contracts be drawn up in order to avoid potential misunderstandings and mistakes. Contracts should include the following details regarding partnerships: scope, financial arrangements, property rights, project outcomes and safeguards (Matthews & Norgaard, 1984, pp. 181-192). The issues of safeguards may develop increasing importance within the next decade. Loessin predicts that, due to possible recessions in the economy, companies and businesses may follow the example of government agencies and nonprofit research foundations by limiting research funds. Contracts may assist in buffering negative side effects on partnerships due to this potential occurrence in the economy.

Additionally, the presence of a mutual contract may ease the fear of university staff members who are resistant to engaging in corporate partnerships in order to promote change through university research activities. Several authors have examined resistance that has resulted from the valid concerns that corporate partners will attempt to use relationships as marketing tools (Marcus, 1999), as well as the concern that "basic" (or scholarly) research will be abandoned for research projects that solely benefit the funding corporation (Desruisseaux, 1999).

James L. Morrison and Ian Wilson advocate the use of "environmental scanning" when engaging the external environment (1997). According to the authors, this scanning is defined as " . . . obtaining accurate and continuous intelligence about changes in the institution’s external environment." (p. 204). This process is particularly important when developing research partnerships. The information gathered from an environmental scan may be used to determine the type and extent of partnership developed with corporate entities. For example, environmental scanning may determine the usefulness of particular research activities. If the environmental scan indicates that the research partnership suggested by a university and/or business may not be applicable, a significant loss of funding may be avoided by not engaging in the partnership — or, more importantly, by seeking research projects that are worthwhile ones.

Rikard Stankiewicz has cited the lack of communication between universities and businesses as a main obstacle to collaboration and developing partnerships (1986). Therefore, it is important that the research partnership include a variety of means to ensure open communication amongst all parties. Deadlines for reporting current progress and results, as well as regularly scheduled meetings (with the advent of videoconferencing technology, meetings no longer require that participants be located in the same geographical locations), will play a role in maintaining strong communication. Exchange programs between university members and corporate staff is another suggestion for maintaining communication during the research partnership (Matthews & Norgaard, 1984). Communication strategies may be included in partnership contracts.

Research partnerships are frequently developed in order to engage in activities that will produce significant results and outcomes. These results, in turn, may (and do) lead to change and transformation. However, it is important to ensure that these partnerships lead to beneficial changes for higher education institutions. This does not mean that the change is necessarily a momentous one. As an example, incremental (yet beneficial) change resulting from a research partnership may involve the discovery of new knowledge and information within a specific academic/industrial field. Exposure to this knowledge in the curriculum may better prepare students when entering the related field.

SUMMARY

Although these guidelines are based upon partnerships between research universities and corporations, other institutions (e.g., community colleges, government agencies) may be able to incorporate certain principles when developing external relations. Moreover, staff members at research universities should determine the extent to which a specific guideline may apply in a partnership opportunity. The guideline, in other words, should promote the partnership in a particular situation (as opposed to being a hindrance). Additionally, utilization of guidelines is important when ensuring that corporate partnerships are created with the intent to promote change and transformation at higher education institutions. As universities and colleges continue to transform the methods of teaching and research in the twenty-first century, it is integral to promote the involvement of the external environment through the development of corporate partnerships.

FURTHER READING

Several authors address the issue of partnerships between universities and the corporate world. Teresa I. Campbell and Sheila Slaughter (1999), Diana Hicks and Kimberly Hamilton (1999) and Daniel J. Rowley, Herman D. Lujan and Michael G. Dolence (1997) provide summaries about these partnerships, as well as the rationale for engaging the external environment through this type of relationship. A global perspective regarding corporate partnerships is provided in several chapters in Innovation and Economic Development: University-Enterprise Partnerships in Action (edited by Jay Mitra and Piero Formica, 1997) and Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academic (edited by Henry Etzkowitz, Andrew Webster and Peter Healey, 1998).

Additional works act as practical guidebooks for establishing these partnerships. Rikard Stankiewicz (1986) and Jana B. Matthews and Rolf Norgaard (1984) are excellent resources for university staff members involved in developing corporate partnerships. Although these works are highly detailed ones, faculty members and administrators involved in research partnerships will find the suggestions helpful in promoting effective and beneficial external relationships.

An examination of literature that provides critiques of partnerships is also important when engaging in these activities with external constituents. Articles and books containing criticisms of partnerships provide common mistakes that university staff members should avoid, as well as various abuses by potential partners of which universities should be aware. For example, David L. Marcus provides an interesting discussion regarding the abuse of research partnerships (by private companies) in order to use the relationship solely as a marketing tool. Additionally, Paul Desruisseaux expresses concern that universities may place an inordinate amount of emphasis on corporate research (especially when the company is providing a significant amount of funding), thus neglecting scholarly and academic work (1999).

Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions (edited by Marvin W. Peterson, David D. Dill and Lisa A. Mets, 1997) also has several chapters that include discussions about the role of the external environment when fostering postsecondary change. The contributors to this book describe a variety of methods to engage the external environment when planning for change and transformation.

Additionally, Andrew Webster and Henry Etzkowitz pose several questions for future research regarding university and corporate partnerships (1998). Although several books and articles have been published with case studies of university-corporate partnerships, the authors suggest that a theoretical and research-oriented analysis also needs to be conducted. While a significant number of postsecondary institutions continue to increase relationships with external constituents, additional research addressing theoretical issues may increase support for these activities, as well as promoting the connection between research partnerships and postsecondary transformation.

REFERENCES

Bellini, E. & Zollo, G. (1997). Technology-based entrepreneurship: Academic spin-offs in less developed areas. In J. Mitra & P. Formica (Eds.), Innovation and Economic Development: University-Enterprise Partnerships in Action. Dublin, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.

Campbell, T. I. D. & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 70(3): 309-352.

Clarke, R. D. (1998). Partnering for success. Black Enterprise, 29(2): 112-116.

Desruisseaux, P. (1999). Canadian professors decry power of companies in campus research. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(12): A59-A61.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing Knowledge: Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hicks, D. & Hamilton, K. (1999). Real numbers. Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4): 74-75.

Loessin, B. A. (1997). Linking fundraising and development with planning. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and Management for A Changing Environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Marcus, D. L. (1999). Next up: corporate logos on the pennants? U. S. News and World Report, 127(18): 75.

Matthews, J. B. & Norgaard, R. (1984). Managing the Partnership Between Higher Education and Industry. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Mitra, J. & Formica, P. (1997). Innovation and Economic Development: University-Enterprise Partnerships in Action. Dublin, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.

Mitra, J. & Formica, P. (1997). Innovative players in economic development in Europe: "Learning companies" and "entrepreneurial universities" in action. In J. Mitra & P. Formica (Eds.), Innovation and Economic Development: University-Enterprise Partnerships in Action. Dublin, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.

Morrison, J. L. & Wilson, I. (1997). Analyzing environments and developing scenarios for uncertain times. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

NC State University Centennial Campus (2000). Retrieved April 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://centennial.ncsu.edu

Peterson, M. W. (1995). Images of university structure, governance, and leadership: adaptive strategies for the new environment. In D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly. Trowbridge, Great Britain: Redwood Books.

Peterson, M. W. (1997). Using contextual planning to transform institutions. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Petit, C. W. (1998). Germinating access. U.S. News & World Report, 125(16): 60.

Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (1997). Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities: Planning to Survive and Prosper. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shapiro, W. L. & Cartwright, G. P. (1998). New ways to link technology and faculty development. Change, 30(5): 50-52.

Stankiewicz, R. (1986). Academic and Entrepreneurs: Developing University-Industry Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Webster, A. & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Toward a theoretical analysis of academic-industry collaboration. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster & P. Healey (Eds.), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wood, J. L. (1998). In California, a dangerous deal with technology companies. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(24): B6.