Best Practices in Knowledge Transfer: Insights from Top Universities

Abstract

The impact of knowledge transfer induced by universities on economy, society, and culture is widely acknowledged; nevertheless, this aspect is often neglected by university rankings. Here, we considered three of the most popular global university rankings and specific knowledge transfer indicators by U-multirank, a European ranking system launched by the European Commission, in order to answer to the following research question: how do the world top universities, evaluated according to global university rankings, perform from a knowledge transfer point of view? To this aim, the top universities have been compared with the others through the calculation of a Global Performance Indicator in Knowledge Transfer (GPI KT), a hierarchical clustering, and an outlier analysis. The results show that the universities best rated by global rankings do not always perform as well from knowledge transfer point of view. By combining the obtained results, it is possible to state that only 5 universities (Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, CALTEC), among the top in the world, exhibit a high-level performance in knowledge transfer activities. For a better understanding of the success factors and best practices in knowledge transfer, a brief description of the 5 cited universities, in terms of organization of technology transfer service, relationship with business, entrepreneurship programs, and, more generally, third mission activities, is provided. A joint reading of the results suggests that the most popular global university rankings probably fail to effectively photograph third mission activities because they can manifest in a variety of forms, due to the intrinsic and intangible nature of third mission variables, which are difficult to quantify with simple and few indicators.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.