Managing the accountability–autonomy tensions in university research commercialisation

• Date: 01 November 2017
• Author: Lee D. Parker,Deryl Northcott,Anil K. Narayan
• Published date: 01 November 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12127

Received: 28 June 2017 Accepted: 29 June 2017

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12127

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Managing the accountability–autonomy tensions

in university research commercialisation

Anil K. Narayan1Deryl Northcott1Lee D. Parker2

1AUTBusiness School, The Auckland University

ofTechnology, Auckland, New Zealand

2RMITUniversity, Melbourne, Australia and Vis-

itingProfessor, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,

UK

Correspondence

AnilK. Narayan, AUT Business School, The Auck-

landUniversity of Technology,Private Bag 92006,

Auckland1142, New Zealand.

Email:anil.narayan@aut.ac.nz

Abstract

This article investigates organisational responses to emerging con-

cerns about how accountability–autonomy tensions can be managed

within the context of university research commercialisation. The

findings suggest that changed expectations of university research

practices, which result from the introduction of a commercialisation

logic, can be managed via the homogenisation of research goals and

strategies. The successful management of accountability–autonomy

tensions also depends on utilising the various structures and cultural

contexts that can be facilitated by decoupling and bridging strate-

gies. Further, while adopting symbolic systems may enhance legiti-

macy,failure to implement material practices and provide the appro-

priate cultural context to manage conflicting relationships may put

university commercialisation ambitions at risk.

KEYWORDS

accountability, autonomy, commercialisation, research, universities

1INTRODUCTION

As research and its commercialisation have increasingly impacted on economies and societies, demands for account-

ability and relevance in university research have grown. In addition to teaching and research, universities havea new

mission to achieveknowledge transfer and the commercialisation of research results (Nelles & Vorley, 2010). Research

commercialisation is defined as ‘the transformation of basic knowledge into marketable new products and services’,

thereby contributing to improved economic and social outcomes (Laperche, 2002, p. 150). It reflects the logic of mar-

ket forces, with a shift in the focus of academic researchtowards r evenue-seeking(Lapsley & Miller, 2004).

The changed commercial expectations of university research give rise to accountability–autonomy tensions that

can be divisive and undermine the academic values of universities. Today, universities operate in an environment

where economic and political interests intrude on their internal autonomy,research strategies are increasingly market-

oriented and the focus is moving towards applied, commercialised research and the management of intellectual prop-

erty (Gulbrandsen& Smeby, 2005; Salmi, 2007).

The aim of this article is to address an unexplored question, that is how do universities of varying histories and ori-

entations address the management of underlying tensions between researcher autonomyand accountability that arise

from the increasing trend towards research commercialisation? While extant studies point to the contextual drivers,

Financial Acc & Man. 2017;33:335–355. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam c

2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 335

336 NARAYANET AL.

the role of various stakeholders,the i mpactson researchers and the outcomes for universities, little research has been

conducted into the dynamics and challenges of managing this process. In particular,there has been no consideration of

how universities’ differing backgrounds shape their strategies for managing accountability–autonomytensions.

Why is this issue important? The challenges of research commercialisation have shifted the research manage-

ment focus from supporting autonomous individual researchers to fostering, managing and evaluating research teams

that can produce commercialiseable knowledge. However, this has led to tensions between university managers

and researchers as the latter challenge perceived intrusions into their autonomy and growing demands for research

entrepreneurship (Salmi, 2007). This raises questions concerning what strategies universities can use to diffuse these

tensions, and whether the same strategies can work for universities at differing stages of their research and commer-

cialisation development.

This study demonstrates that managing tensions requires accommodating commercialisation within the university

structure in a homogeneous manner so that it does not undermine the scholarly research culture and values of aca-

demic freedom and autonomy that have shaped research within universities(Deem, 2004). It will also reveal the com-

plexities of strategisingand managing the commercialisation process, particularly regarding the crucial task of dealing

with competing external and internal logics. Structures and processes of bridging, buffering and decoupling will all be

shown to play potential roles in managing accountability–autonomy tensions.

Using case studies of two New Zealand universities engaged in research commercialisation, we investigate the

related accountability–autonomy tensions and propose ways tomanage them. The next section reviews relevant liter-

ature on the challenges of research commercialisation to explain the underlying tensions between researcher auton-

omy and accountability. We then describe our theoretical frameworkand research method and present our findings

and discussion. Finally,we develop conclusions and implications for future research.

2THE CHALLENGES OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH COMMERCIALISATION

With diminishing government funding, universities have been conditioned towards an increasing degree of self-

financing (Parker, 2013). To this end, governments have prompted universities to reshape their research orienta-

tions and structures by partnering with private sector corporations, seeking grants from external funding bodies,

patenting discoveries, providing research-based corporateadvisory services and, of course, commercialising research

outputs, perhaps by creating spin-off companies (Parker, 2012; Soley, 1995). Extracting financial revenues for and

from research has become a new performance benchmark for assessing researcher success (Parker & Guthrie, 2005;

Washburn, 2005). Hence, university research projects and teams have developeda g reateremphasis on serving the

private rather than public interest, as commercial revenues are assiduously pursued and the financial interests of uni-

versities and their private sector partners dominate research strategies (Washburn, 2005). Universityresearchers in

turn become reconfigured as research entrepreneurs (Gendron, 2008; Soley,1995).

Commercialisation of university research became prominent with the passage of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act in the

USA, which gave universities the incentive to patent inventions resulting from publicly funded research (Decter,

Bennett, & Leseure, 2007). From the mid-1990s, many OECD nations followed the USA example by granting intel-

lectual property ownership rights to universities to encourage research commercialisation to supplement their pub-

lic research funding with private funding (OECD, 2003). This has transformed universities into hybrid organisations

(Parker,2012), often being public sector situated but expected to pursue commercial imperatives.

The pressure for commercialisation has added a new dimension to the research management practices of many

universities. The boundaries between basic and applied research are being actively contested and redefined in terms

of how research advances social and economic development (Calvert, 2006), and it is claimed that individual and

institutional research autonomy has deteriorated due to a more commercialised research environment and increased

accountability requirements (Kayrooz et al., 2007). In this new climate, universities are confronted with a complex

research and development process that requires managing the competing interests of stakeholdersinvolved in explor-

ing and exploiting knowledge (Hardy,1991).