Minerva (2010) 48:463–483

DOI 10.1007/s11024-010-9158-7

The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? Doctoral

Students in University–Industry–Government
Collaborations

Taran Thune

Published online: 21 November 2010

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Changes in knowledge production, increasing interaction between

government, universities and industry, and changes in labor markets for doctoral
degree holders are forces that have spurred a debate about the organization of
doctoral education and the competencies graduates need to master to work as sci-
entists and researchers in a triple helix research context. Recent policy also has
supported a redefinition of researcher training with increasing focus on broader
skills and relevance for careers outside the university sector. Consequently, it is
pertinent to investigate current changes in doctoral education and researcher
training. Particularly further knowledge about university–industry collaboration as a
context for researcher training is required. With this in mind, this study provides
empirical illustrations of how research training carried out in collaborative research
contexts is experienced by doctoral students, and offers some insight into antecedent
and process factors that are central in shaping PhD students’ research and training
experience in collaborative research contexts. Based on the empirical data and a
review of existing literature, suggestions for further research are made.

Keywords Triple helix
University–industry–government relations

Collaborative research
Doctoral students
Researcher training

Introduction

Changes in how knowledge is produced, increasing interaction between universities

and industry, and changes in labor markets for doctoral degree holders are forces
that have led to a debate about the future organization of doctoral education and the

T. Thune (&)
Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU STEP),
Wergelandsveien 7, 0167 Oslo, Norway
e-mail: taran.thune@nifustep.no

123
464 T. Thune

necessary competencies graduates need to master to work as scientists and

researchers in a ‘‘triple helix context’’ (Gemme and Gringas 2004; Enders and De
Weert 2004; Enders 2005; Borell-Damian 2009). As indications of these changes,
recent investigations show that an increasing number of doctoral students interact
with firms or receive funding from firms during the PhD period, and find work in the
private sector after graduation (Kyvik and Olsen 2007; Metcalfe 2007; Auriol
2007). The research literature that has focused particularly on doctoral students in
university-industry relationships is limited, but studies of university-industry
relationships frequently point to the importance of doctoral students. Three roles
are attributed to doctoral students in university-industry relations: They are
significant producers of knowledge in collaborative research projects (Slaughter
et al. 2002; Mangematin and Robin 2003), they are an important channel for
knowledge transfer between universities and firms (Mangematin 2000; Graversen
and Friis-Jensen 2001), and they are vital in network configurations between firms,
government and universities (Lam 2000; Slaughter et al. 2002; Thune 2006).
Students involved in collaborative doctoral programs or collaborative research
projects are seen as ‘‘bridge builders’’ between university and industry (Borell-
Damian 2009)—as students and particularly after they graduate. These perspectives
are highly instrumental and focus on the potential benefits of involving doctoral
students in UI relationships. But at the same time, little is known about the doctoral
students’ own research and training experience in collaborative research contexts
and the factors and processes that shape their experiences.
To shed further light on this question, a literature review and an exploratory
empirical study was carried out. The findings from the literature review were used to
develop a qualitative study of doctoral students, their supervisors and industrial
partners in collaborative research partnerships in Norway. The focus of the
empirical study is on how collaborative research projects involving PhD students
are developed and defined and how PhD students become involved in such research
projects. This study also focuses on how the PhD students interact with firms and
what roles they carry out in research collaborations. In this paper, data from
interviews with twenty-five doctoral students who collaborate with industry as part
of their PhD dissertation work will be presented. This study is not about describing a
new type of researcher training, but about exploring an emerging context for
researcher training where triple helix interactions represent a core dynamic, and
where PhD students are routinely included in collaborative research projects. The
aim of the paper is to shed further light on the practices that embed doctoral students
in triple helix interactions. Based on a review of existing literature and an
exploratory empirical study, suggestions for further research are made.

Perspectives on Researcher Training in Collaborative Research

The triple helix model of university-industry-government relations (Etzkowitz and

Leydesdorff 2000) is a model that attempts to explain dynamics in knowledge-based
economies, focusing on the expanded role of knowledge in society and the role of
the university in this development. Focus is put on the increasingly interwoven

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 465

relations between universities, industry and governments in the knowledge

economy. According to Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, the knowledge economy spurs
this development, as it becomes a common goal for government, industry and the
university to promote innovation, in which science based knowledge is central. The
triple helix model emphasizes that the university plays an enhanced role in
innovation in the knowledge economy. To promote developments of knowledge
infrastructures and innovation systems, the university, industrial and government
sectors are involved in stimulating creation and dissemination of new knowledge.
With such a common goal, the three sectors are beginning to take the role of the
others whilst retaining traditional missions, and hybrid organizations and networks
appear at the interfaces. These hybrid organizations and networks serve to
‘‘institutionalize and reproduce interface as well as stimulate organizational
creativity and regional cohesiveness’’ (Etzkowitz et al. 2000, p. 315).
According to the triple helix perspective, firms are beginning to act like
universities by investing in research laboratories and corporate universities. The
government is taking the role of industry in supporting development of industry-
relevant research and technology transfer to industry, and plays a role directly and
indirectly in supporting and setting up trilateral networks and hybrid organizations.
Universities are beginning to act like firms by capitalizing knowledge and starting
up new commercial entities, and are becoming more entrepreneurial. Entrepre-
neurial activities comprise patenting and licensing, creating incubators, science-
parks and spin-offs, but also play a role as a ‘‘regional innovation organizer’’ (Ranga
et al. 2008). The traditional teaching role changes as education policies are geared
towards increasing focus on employability and workplace skills, entrepreneurship
education and collaboration with industry as part of educational programs. The
university integrates the new entrepreneurial role into the traditional missions of
research and education, but this development also changes how the traditional roles
are carried out (Etzkowitz et al. 2000). The entrepreneurial university model does
not only affect elite research universities, but can be enacted at different types of
higher education institutions and in different subject fields. A large variety of
responses towards developing market-based activities and services within educa-
tion, research and ‘‘third mission’’ areas of activities is expected as the result of such
changes.
Research training is an integral part of the university and is consequently affected
by increasing industry-university-government interactions in fundamental ways.
Today’s doctoral students represent the future of the university (Louis et al. 2007) as
researcher training is a socialization process aimed at forming the identity and
professional practices of future science workers. Taking the role of the other,
mobility across sectors and developing and engaging in trilateral networks require
particular competencies and values that do not develop spontaneously, but are
dependent upon a new mode of training and socialization of future researchers.
Changes in researcher training also represent a necessary precondition for the
further expansion of triple helix interactions since it will be dependent on people
with transferable competencies and interaction skills in the universities, in firms,
and in government organizations. The triple helix model impacts researcher training
in universities by increasing emphasis on entrepreneurial values and competencies

123
466 T. Thune

needed for commercialization of knowledge, increasing exposure to ‘‘real life

problems’’ and collaboration with user communities in industry or government
during the development of PhD programs, in the recruitment of students and during
the PhD research projects.
Firms that increasingly take the role of universities, by investing in research and
other knowledge intensive processes, will recruit and train people with research
skills for many different positions and strengthen their collaborations with
universities. If the triple helix hypothesis is true, one should expect an increasing
demand for workers with doctoral degrees in the private sector. At the same time,
industry emphasizes broader sets of skills than what is traditionally emphasized in
doctoral education. According to a recent report from the European University
Association, when firms recruit staff with PhD qualifications they particularly
emphasize the creative ability of being able to integrate knowledge from different
disciplines and sectors to create new or improve existing solutions. Firms also
emphasize transferable skills, such as communication skills, leadership skills, ability
and willingness to change, creative abilities and the ability to handle complex
problems (Borell-Damian 2009). An increasing interest in people with research
qualifications is also seen in the public sector, which has also led to developments of
new professional doctoral degrees focused on public sector administration (Fig. 1).
The government plays an important role in adapting doctoral education to a triple
helix framework by stimulating the development of new types of researcher training
and by promoting policies that focus on a broader set of skills for researcher training
and multiple career tracks for people with doctoral level qualifications. And in

Fig. 1 Triple helix and impact on researcher training

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 467

several countries, new ways of organizing research and training of doctoral students
has become a pertinent higher education and research policy issue in recent years.
Doctoral level education is increasingly seen as part of collaborative arrangements
between firms, government and universities. According to Borell-Damian (2009),
there is not a single model of doctoral collaboration with industry. Approaches
include initiatives from large firms, initiatives from R&D intensive SMEs,
university-led initiatives, and structured public–private partnerships. In terms of
the latter, different governmental programs provide financial support for doctoral
students who work on firm R&D projects in collaboration with universities, such as
the Industrial PhD-programs in Norway and Denmark, the Industrial Research
Schools in Sweden, the Co-operative awards in science and engineering in the UK,
CIFRE in France, and several other national and international programs.
Such specialized programs enroll a limited number of PhD students. However,
researcher training is also a central part of other research policy instruments aiming
at strengthening the collaboration between industry and universities, such as
collaborative research centers or public research programs supporting collaborative
research. In Europe, an increasing policy focus in doctoral level training is on
increasing the relevance of doctoral level training for careers outside academia, the
focus here being more and more on graduate employability and transferable skills
(Borell-Damian 2009). The aims of such recent initiatives and programs are to
increase research carried out in industry, to educate researchers with insight into
industrial perspectives on R&D, and to make research an attractive career for people
who are ‘normally not interested’ in a research career. Overall, the aim is to educate
a new cadre of researchers who are not only prepared for a career in academia but
who posses ties to and competencies relevant for other sectors and professions as
well (European Commission 2003; Borell-Damian 2009).
However, several of the issues and challenges addressed in this paper are not only
of relevance to collaborative research carried out in triple helix frameworks.
Collaborative research is a key policy tool for supporting transdisciplinary research
directed towards complex research problems or ‘‘grand challenges,’’ such as energy
and environmental issues or health related research. Increasing use of research
funding mechanisms that focus on thematic priorities and international collaboration
also led to more collaborative organization of research (Porac et al. 2004). As a
response, an emerging ‘‘team science’’ literature has developed, particularly in the
US, to provide knowledge about ways of organizing multidisciplinary teams of
scientists (Hall et al. 2008; Stokols et al. 2008). According to Vastag (2008),
graduate students involved in collaborative research often fulfill central roles as
bridges between disciplines and in many cases junior scientists and graduate
students are ‘‘driving a lot of interdisciplinary collaboration’’ (p. 422). Conse-
quently, one key issue addressed within this literature is the need to train researchers
with relevant transdisciplinary competencies and ‘‘team science’’ skills and attitudes
(Nash 2008). The knowledge about researcher training being carried out in
collaborative research contexts is nascent, and present prescriptive models are quite
idealistic and based on limited empirical knowledge (Nash 2008). With this in mind,
this study provides empirical illustrations of how collaborative research training is
experienced by the involved doctoral students, and offers some insight into

123
468 T. Thune

antecedent and process factors that are central in shaping PhD students collaboration
experience.
Researcher training and doctoral education changes in several ways as a result of
increasing interfacing between universities, industry and government. Recent policy
also has supported a redefinition of researcher training where broader skills and
relevance for careers outside the university sector is seen as central. But one could
also argue that changes in mode of researcher training is a necessary precondition
for the development of the triple helix—because the effective working and
expansion of triple helix networks at the micro level require heterogeneous
networks and people who are skilled in communication across organizational and
intellectual boundaries. Thus, for several reasons it is pertinent to investigate current
changes in doctoral education and researcher training. Particularly further knowl-
edge about university–industry collaborations as a context for researcher training is
required. Relevant research questions include questions about the organization and
coordination of collaborative PhD training as well as the content and skills
emphasized during the doctoral education period. Other relevant questions are on
potential changes in research focus and impact on researcher productivity and
implications for professional identity, career ambitions and career patterns.

Empirical Research on the University–Industry Interface as a Context

for Researcher Training

Research that has attempted to describe and characterize university–industry–

government interactions as a context for researcher training is fairly limited (Thune
2009). Empirical research has so far mainly been based on particular samples of
PhD students—the participants in specialized industrial PhD programs (Butcher and
Jeffrey 2007; Borell-Damian 2009; Harman 2004, 2008; Wallgren and Dahlgren
2005, 2007; Salminen-Karlsson and Wallgren 2008; Forsknings-og Innovasjons-
styrelsen 2007). But the majority of doctoral students who interact with industry
during the doctoral degree period are not involved in such specialized tracks, but
interact with firms as participants in collaborative research projects or collaborative
research centers. Some empirical research has been carried out on doctoral students
who collaborate with industry outside such specialized industrial PhD programs, for
instance by surveying all PhD students in particular departments or institutions
(Gluck et al. 1987; Behrens and Gray 2001; Gemme and Gringas 2004; Mangematin
2000; Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menedez 2005). These studies offer a comparison
between different modes of collaboration and between collaborating students and
students who do not collaborate with industry during the doctoral period.
The current empirical research indicates that doctoral student-firm collaboration
is a heterogeneous phenomenon and that the collaboration experiences of the
doctoral students vary accordingly. Several characteristics of the collaborations,
such as firm characteristics, type of organization, resource exchange and routines
developed during the course of collaboration, have been investigated and found to
have an impact on students’ interaction experiences (Gemme and Gringas 2004;
Wallgren and Dahlgren 2005; Butcher and Jeffrey 2007). Moreover, research

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 469

indicates that doctoral students involved in collaborative arrangements with industry

have different researcher training experiences than students who are not involved in
collaborative research. The physical surroundings in which they work, the
supervision they receive, the research projects they work on, and the norms of
conduct they are exposed to are much more heterogeneous than what non-
collaborating PhD students are exposed to. But at the same time, interacting with
industry does not seem to have a significant effect on students’ satisfaction with
their research/training experience (Behrens and Gray 2001; Gemme and Gringas
2004), as PhD students who collaborate with industry report similar levels of
satisfaction with the doctoral education and training experience as students who do
not collaborate.
In terms of outcomes that are realized during the PhD period, several variables
have been included in empirical research: scholarly productivity (number of papers,
presentations etc.), commercial productivity (number of patents, trade secrets etc.)
and students’ perceived academic freedom. The results are somewhat mixed, but
there seem to be few significant differences between collaborating and non-
collaborating students with respect to study experience, satisfaction and study
outcomes (Thune 2009).
Another set of outcome variables are related to doctoral students’ labor market
prospects. Several of the studies reviewed find no significant effect of collaborative
experiences on career ambitions. Doctoral students collaborating with industry have
similar career ambitions in terms of preferred sectors of employment as non-
collaborating students (Harman 2004; Behrens and Gray 2001). In terms of actual
career destinations, empirical research indicates that graduates who collaborate with
industry during the PhD have better labor market prospects and are more frequently
employed in the private sector than PhD students who do not collaborate with
industry (Mangematin 2000; Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menedez 2005).
In general, it seems fair to conclude that collaborating with industry during the
PhD has limited impact on study experience and outcomes realized during the PhD
period, but that it has long term impacts on career patterns. The main explanation
offered for this ‘‘limited impact’’ on study experience and study outcomes is
primarily that in the academic fields investigated, mainly engineering and life
sciences, university-industry collaboration is a ubiquitous phenomenon and
represents a routine or ‘‘normalized practice’’ (Behrens and Gray 2001; Slaughter
et al. 2002). The university departments, professors and firms who set up
collaborations that involve PhD students often have extensive experience in
handling collaboration processes; they have knowledge about each others’
differences and the challenges that might occur in collaborative research. Prior
research also indicates that the type of firms involved in the collaborations,
particularly the firms’ R&D intensity and prior collaborative experience, also shapes
the doctoral students’ collaboration experience (Thune 2009; Wallgren and
Dahlgren 2005). As a result of previous collaboration experiences, the firms and
university departments have developed routines for handling collaborations, as well
as familiarity and affinity, which also reduces friction in collaborative relationships
(Mora-Valentin et al. 2004; Butcher and Jeffrey 2007). The academic supervisor,
and his prior experiences in collaborating with industry, also seems to be

123
470 T. Thune

particularly important for shaping the doctoral students’ experience in collaborating

with industry (Boardman and Ponomariov 2009). In collaborations that are
experienced as successful, the academic supervisors seem to have developed
collaborations with industry that offer a good learning environment for doctoral
students, and they seem to have been able to identify collaborative research projects
that are suitable for a PhD study (Salminen-Karlsson and Wallgren 2008). Solutions
to potential problems, particularly intellectual property issues, have been found, and
problems are dealt with in such a manner that it does not create problems for the
doctoral students or unduly delays publications (Slaughter et al. 2002).
With these results in mind, the next section of the paper will provide new
empirical data from an interview study of PhD students who interact with industry
as part of their PhD dissertation research. The aim is to explore in greater detail how
this ‘‘normalized practice’’ of including PhD students in collaborative research
occurs and what roles the PhD students fulfill in these partnerships.

An Empirical Study of PhD Students’ Involvement in Collaborative Research

Research Design and Methodology

In order to shed light on the practices of embedding PhD students in collaborative

research and how students experience research collaboration, an exploratory
interview study with 25 PhD students was carried out. The students interviewed are
all being trained in scientific disciplines where university-industry collaboration is
quite common: materials sciences, chemical engineering, business economics and
information and communication technology. However, interaction frequency, mode
of interaction and importance attached to UI-links differ a lot in different academic
fields and economic sectors (Schartinger et al. 2002; Bekkers and Freitas 2008).
Materials sciences and ICT are regarded as central fields of research and have a high
degree of interaction with many economic sectors (Schartinger et al. 2002; Cohen
et al. 2003; Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch 1998). In these fields, interaction usually
takes the form of collaborative research as well as through informal networks.
Rappert et al. (1999) find that, in materials science, firms interact with academic
environments primarily for access to specialized competence and materials testing
facilities. In information and communication technology, interaction is focused on
knowledge transfer and personnel mobility but also on collaborative research
(Bekkers and Freitas 2008). Business economics is also regarded as central for a
large variety of economic sectors, but interaction is mainly carried out through
education and training links as well as personnel mobility (Schartinger et al. 2002).
Chemical engineering interacts with fewer economic sectors but there is a very high
degree of interaction with these sectors. In addition to collaborative research,
contract research is a central mode of interaction in this sector (Schartinger et al.
2002). Consequently, several analyses have shown that the mode of interaction and
the rationales driving the interaction differ quite a lot in different academic fields,
even though there is a comparably high degree of interaction with industry in all of
them. Due to this, selecting informants from different academic fields is important

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 471

when investigating university–industry collaborations. Doctoral student involve-

ment in collaborative research has not been subjected to sector specific analyses, but
since modes of collaborations vary significantly, one should expect some
differences in terms of PhD students’ involvement in collaborative research as well.
To select PhD students from these fields for interviews, four university
departments were contacted, and from three of them, we obtained a full list of all
PhD students who were involved in collaborations with industry as part of their
dissertation work. All PhD students were invited to participate in the interviews. In
one of the departments, we utilized a snowball technique for sampling, and thus we
do not know the extent of collaboration at PhD level in this department. While we
cannot assert that the results are representative for all PhD students who collaborate
with industry, the qualitative data provides detailed information about how PhD
students interact with industry, and how they experience the collaboration process
and their experienced impact on the PhD research and research training process.
Half of the students interviewed in this study work on research projects that are
partly funded by public research grants, but set up as collaborative research projects
between a firm and a university or as a consortium with several academic and
commercial partners. The other half work on research projects that are fully funded
by firms. The large majority of the informants is temporarily employed as PhD
fellows by the university and are, or have recently been, enrolled in a regular PhD
program at the university. All of the PhD students collaborate with industry in
research projects that will result in a doctoral dissertation, thus collaborating with
industry is not something that they do on top of their regular research work.
The interviews were carried out face-to-face, utilizing a structured interview
guide. The interview guide covered issues such as: how the research projects they
worked on was developed and how they became involved in them, their initial
motivation for working in collaborative research, the character of the interaction
processes with industrial partners, challenges that occurred during the collaboration
process and how they were handled, the role of the supervisor and the firm contact
persons in the research process, how collaboration with industry has influenced
research and researcher training, their career ambitions. The interviews were taped
and transcribed, and data was coded and analyzed utilizing Nvivo 9. The analysis
followed a template framework (King 2004), starting out coding interview content
according to key themes and concepts found in the interview guide. Subsequent
analysis in Nvivo focused on creating refined subcategories of codes and exploring
relationships between concepts and codes emerging from the data. Thus, a deductive
and inductive approach to analysis was combined.
In the data analysis, the focus was first and foremost to explore common issues in
the 25 students’ experiences, having in mind that the students work in different
fields of science with different traditions for interacting with industry. Thus, the
design follows a maximum variety approach to case selection, where the aim is to
identify commonalities in cases that are selected based on their differences in
context (Eisenhardt 1989; Schofield 2002). Through this analysis fairly robust
patterns can be identified. This mode of analyzing data also means that there is less
focus on the variety between the individual experiences. But since this is an
exploratory study, the purpose of the analysis is also to explore what kind of key

123
472 T. Thune

independent variables likely influence PhD students’ collaboration experience,

which can be tested in further empirical studies. Consequently, based on the
analysis, several research questions and important variables are described.

Empirical Data

Becoming Involved in Collaborative Research

The PhD students interviewed in this study collaborate with a number of Norwegian
and international companies. Most of the companies are large and R&D intensive or
high-tech SMEs. The firms invest extensively in research and development
activities, and many of them have long traditions of collaborating with universities
and other public research institutes. Almost all of the informants say that the
collaborative research projects they are currently involved in emanated from a
previous relationship between the university and the company, and the professor and
firm contact person often have personal relations or have been a part of the same
networks for many years. It is important to have in mind that there are strong ties
between research environments in universities and Norwegian companies that invest
in R&D and employ people with scientific qualifications (Thune 2006). Only three
of the informants describe the collaboration they are involved in as a completely
new relationship between the university and the company in question. In all three
cases, either the firm or the researcher is not of Norwegian nationality. Personal
connections, close networks and long term relationships between a firm and research
groups or individual researchers in universities are central explanations of how
collaborative research projects develop in the Norwegian context (as it probably is
in most countries). When asked how the project they currently are involved in
started, typical responses include:
I think that there was someone there (in the company) who knew my
supervisor. There was someone at the company that had worked here before
and they had collaborated previously as well (PhD student in chemistry).
They (the company) have always been very interested in research. That’s been
a part of their culture to collaborate with research environments. One of my
supervisors had collaborated with them for a long period of time. So I guess it
is due to the relationship she had developed with them (PhD student in
software engineering).
12 of the respondents are involved in research projects that are fully funded by
the companies or by a consortium of companies, whereas 13 are involved in
collaborative research projects that are partly funded by public research grants and
partly by private companies. All of the publicly funded research projects were
funded through programs targeting collaborative research, and where the firms
either contribute part of the funding or by in-kind contributions (research facilities,
time, or other resources). Of the respondents who were fully funded by companies,
two were funded by a consortium of firms and 10 were fully funded by one
company.

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 473

The large majority of the informants had no prior engagements with the firms
they collaborated with before starting on the PhD. Only three of them had
established relationships through prior employment in the firm. In several of the
cases, the PhD student applied for a PhD position without prior contact to the
university department - this includes all the non-Norwegian PhD students. In only
one case, the PhD student was personally instrumental in forming the research
collaboration between the firm and the university.
The interviews indicated that the reasons for entering collaborative research
projects differed quite a lot between the students and also between the different
fields of research. In particular, the PhD students in ICT had made a conscious
choice of becoming involved in a collaborative research project. Often these
students, at least when they initially started the PhD, aimed for a future career in
industry. The following quote illustrates the attitudes of students who made strategic
choices in collaborating with industry:
I was planning for a career as an IT consultant. But then I got an offer, or I got
asked to apply for a PhD position that was tied to industry. First I thought no,
then maybe yes, because it was industrial. Then I thought that I will get the
best of both worlds. I will not be bogged down in theory but I would be part of
the firm. I would not exactly get experience from consultancy work, but I
would get industrial experience at the same time as I would get an academic
diploma (PhD student in software engineering).
The PhD students, who intentionally chose a PhD position in collaborative
research, also tended to expect that collaborating with industry during the PhD
would be instrumental for achieving their career goals, as illustrated by the
following quote:
I wanted close ties to industry. I want to work with research and development
when I graduate, which they do in the ‘‘Firm’’, and I thought it would be a
good idea to have some contacts there (PhD student in ICT).
In most (but not all) cases, these students had a career in industry in mind. The
interviewed PhD students, particularly within chemical engineering and ICT, work
in academic fields where industrial funding and collaborative research is very
common. They work in research fields where industry is present in ‘‘everything we
do,’’ as expressed by one of the informants. For them, interacting with industry
during the doctoral degree period was routine practice and often considered a sign of
quality and relevance of research. In these areas, interacting with industry during the
PhD is equally important for students who are aiming for a career in industry or in
academia. According to these informants, interacting with industry gives the PhD
students competencies, access to data and research material that are seen as vital for
future research careers both inside and outside the university.
[…] in our field, there is a lot of interest in big case studies, these kind of
empirical studies. So it can help that I can show that I have done this before;
that I have this experience. For post-doc positions and even permanent
positions in the university, they [the university] hire people who have the

123
474 T. Thune

ability to make contacts with industry and who can write proposals (PhD
student in ICT).
When entering collaborative research projects, some of the students were mainly
motivated by access to funding for a PhD project, rather than collaborating with
industry as such. This is particularly common for PhD students in business
economics and non-Norwegian PhD students in all fields of science, as expressed by
the following: ‘‘It was interesting but it was not exactly my concern. Not like if it
isn’t, then I won’t go for that. But it is always good to have real cases’’ (PhD student
in software engineering).
These PhD students were less clear about their career expectations and were
mainly motivated by the research problem rather than any particular career choice.
As one of them expressed it: ‘‘It depends on what kind of job opportunities I will
get. I might just go to academia not to industry’’ (PhD student in chemical
engineering). This could imply that future career opportunities, which differ by
academic fields, also shape the experiences PhD students have when being involved
in collaborative research. In areas where there is a variety of career opportunities,
the PhD students have more positive experiences in collaborating during the PhD
period than in research fields with fewer possible career tracks.

Designing PhD Research Projects in a Collaboration Context

Looking across the 25 PhD students’ stories of how collaborative research projects
develop and unfold, it seems clear that the collaboration processes and the role PhD
students occupy in research collaborations were quite similar, regardless of type of
projects, type of industrial partner and scientific fields. The mode of interaction
between the firm and the PhD student seemed to develop in two quite distinct
phases—the project development phase and the project implementation phase. It
also seems that these phases are distinct and dissimilar and are experienced
differently by the students.
Half of the respondents work on PhD projects that are part of larger collaborative
research projects, often partly funded by public research grants. There seems to be
less freedom for designing research projects for PhD students who participate in
larger collaborative research projects, but this also varies between academic fields.
Students in business economics, who carry out more individually oriented research,
have more freedom to design their own research projects than students in other
areas, who often work in research groups and where research also depends on access
to particular equipment or materials.
Amongst the students interviewed in this study, the freedom for developing and
designing research projects is usually larger when the students partake in research
projects that are fully funded by companies, which is the situation for half of the
respondents. The reason for this is that the research projects are not designed as part
of an application for a research grant. In cases where the firm fully funds PhD
students’ research, it seems that the agreement between the firm and the university
allows for quite a lot of flexibility in designing individual research projects and the
research design is a matter of dialogue and negotiation between the firm, the PhD

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 475

student and the academic supervisor. The following quote provides an illustration of
this negotiation process:
My project developed through a discussion with the Firm, but had the Firm’s
concrete need for knowledge as a starting point. The whole project developed
out of these discussions, and based on these discussions, we came up with
suggestions for research projects, from which the Firm could choose (PhD
student in business economics).
The complexity and size of the research projects seem to be variables that have
an impact on the development of the research projects, particularly with respect to
the freedom the students have in pursuing their own research interests. The nature of
the research projects might matter more than the type of funding and involvement of
industrial partners.

Interaction Between PhD Students and Firms: Barriers and Buffers

Regardless of how the project was designed, the initial contact and processes
connected to developing the project seemed to require a high degree of interaction
between the firm and the PhD student. The firms seemed to be particularly active in
the interaction with the students in the initial phase of the collaboration. First and
foremost, the students needed to acquire knowledge about the firm and the
technology they will work on. The firms provided the PhD students with office
space at the firm or access to company technology and other resources, and the
students interacted regularly with the firm. In this phase, the students often
experienced quite a lot of enthusiasm from the firms and were asked to present the
research project and its results frequently. After this initial stage, when the project
was designed and implemented, the interaction changed and became less intense.
The students carried out the research, mostly based at the university, and reported to
the firm at regular intervals. In this stage, interaction took the form of regular status
meetings, where all involved parties meet, results are presented and the next steps of
the project are discussed. One of the PhD students reflected on this process in the
following manner:
In the beginning it was a strong feeling of collaboration and we did a lot
together. We even sat together and did programming. But after a while, it was
only me who did things and they didn’t do anything. I just showed them what I
had done. And they came and had a look. So, it has really changed (PhD
student in software engineering).
This stage is infrequently followed by a phase with more intense collaboration if
the research project leads to results that are commercially interesting for the firm.
However, for the PhD students, what they experience as lack of interest and lack of
contact with the firms is a far more commonly experienced problem than a firm
showing too much interest or attempting to steer the PhD students and posing
restrictions on publishing due to IPR protection. Rather, all of the 25 PhD students
interviewed in this study experienced limited contact with the firms during the PhD

123
476 T. Thune

period. However, the PhD students’ reaction to this situation seemed also to depend
on their initial motivation to enter collaborative research.
One of the main reasons why the PhD students experience lack of interest from
the firms is that they often lose the contact person they initially had in the firm along
the way. And even though several of the PhD students partake in larger
collaborative research projects, at the operational level, connections seem to be
little institutionalized and highly dependent on key individuals. The firm’s contact
person represents a bridge between the firm and the research environment and
usually has experience in both sectors. The contact person is vital because he can
assist the PhD student in translating and reconciling different demands and areas of
competence needed for carrying out the collaborative research projects. In the cases
described here, the firm’s contact person seldom has a formal supervisor position, as
only one of the informants reported having a formal industry supervisor. However,
informally, this person is amongst the most important advisors for the PhD students,
as illustrated by the following quote:
He was very interested and very, very competent. I am not very skilled
technically, so I felt that it was assuring to have him around, because he
always knew how to solve things practically. It felt safe and he was a really
good champion. I was not afraid of anything, because he was by my side. I
knew what we were going to do and he knew how we could do it. It worked
very well, so it was a shame that he was taken off the project (PhD student in
software engineering).
The contact person also represents the point of entry to the firm. Since he usually
has been part of establishing the project, in the students’ perspective, this person
represents the firm’s vested commitment and engagement in the research project and
the PhD student. The relationship between the PhD student and firm seems to be
vulnerable and dependent upon key contact persons, as are most collaborative
partnerships between firms and universities (Thune 2006). However, for different
reasons, the initial contact person often leaves the project after some time. Half of
the PhD students interviewed report some form of breakdown in communication
due to losing the initial contact person. For the PhD students, the nature of the
collaboration changes after that, as seen in the quote above. In some instances, the
contact disappears altogether, as illustrated by the following quote:
After [Firm] reorganized, my contact person was moved to another part of the
organization, and we got a new person who managed the project. She had
different interests and we have less or really no contact with her at all (PhD
student in software engineering).
The other key person that shapes the PhD students’ collaboration experience is
the academic supervisor. All of the interviewed PhD students claim that their
academic supervisor has extensive experience in collaborative research. According
to the informants, there are several reasons why this is important. First, the
supervisors generated the PhD research projects through their networks and prior
engagements with firms, so in most cases, the research projects would not have been
initiated had it not been for the supervisors’ contacts and experience. Second, the

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 477

supervisor negotiated between the academic demands and industrial demands in

designing research projects, as to make the research project both fitting for a PhD
thesis and relevant for industry. Third, the supervisor acted as a buffer between the
firm and the students and for the most part deals with the firm, in terms of
negotiating contracts, reporting on progress, communicating and transferring
knowledge to the firm and resolving issues connected to IPR or other potential
areas of conflict. IPR issues seemed to be handled in a common manner, where the
PhD students were allowed to publish their work after the papers are approved or in
some cases ‘‘cleaned of trade secrets’’ by the industrial partners. None of the PhD
students had experienced this process as particularly burdensome or had experi-
enced long delays in the publication of results. The process seemed to be handled
professionally and in a routine manner in the research environments that have
extensive industry collaboration. In areas with less tradition for collaboration, such
as business economics, IPR issues are seldom a concern.
The supervisors’ experience in collaborative research and liaising with industry
meant that they were able to design suitable research projects and to create a
working process that enabled the PhD students to mainly concentrate on their PhD
study, even when fully funded by the firm. Most of the interviewed PhD students
stressed that the academic supervisors primarily have academic requirements in
mind, when including PhD students in collaborations with industry, and that it is the
PhD students’ primary task to complete a PhD thesis. The PhD students interacted
with firms only to the extent that it was relevant and necessary for their research
projects. Only five of the informants claim to have other roles to play in addition to
their PhD studies when partaking in collaborative research. All of them were PhD
students in business economics, who also did consultancy services in the firms that
funded their PhD studies. However, none of the informants experience that the firms
they collaborate with have unreasonable expectations of them. Rather, it is the
opposite situation that often frustrates the PhD students: that the firms are less
interested and less active and demanding in the collaborations. The type of projects
and funding (only private or public–private mix) and employment situation of the
PhD students (employed in industry or not) are two likely factors that explain this,
as does the students’ initial motivation for entering collaborative research.

Key Findings and Implications for Further Research

This study has sought to explore university-industry-government interaction as a

context for research training, focusing on areas of knowledge where such
collaboration is quite common and where PhD students are commonly embedded
in triple helix research contexts. As predicted in the triple helix model, in the fields
of science investigated, trilateral networks and common frameworks or ways of
understanding research problems have developed out of increased interaction
between the spheres. This is also seen in the research training field, where broader
skills than traditional scientific skills and disciplinary expertise are stressed, focus is
put on entrepreneurial attitudes and competencies relevant for commercialization of

123
478 T. Thune

research, and researcher training is offered in a context of application or in

collaboration with firms—and offered to new types of research recruits.
Prior research on doctoral students involved in government-industry-university
collaborations indicate that the doctoral students who are involved in collaborative
arrangements with industry have a unique researcher training experience; they gain
other and broader competencies and are exposed to other norms of conduct than the
ones traditionally stressed in doctoral programs. But, at the same time, the students’
assessments of the PhD experience are fairly similar in terms of satisfaction, and the
research productivity of the students is not very different either. Interacting with
industry during the PhD does not negatively affect the training or research of
doctoral students, but likely impacts careers of doctoral degree holders. The likely
explanation for this is that collaborative doctoral programs are found in scientific
fields where university-industry collaboration has occurred for a long period of time
or in areas where industry is highly dependent on scientific knowledge and requires
staff with research training. University-industry collaboration is mature and often
institutionalized in such scientific fields, and common training and socialization
arenas have developed to cater for the training needs of both industry and firms.
Interacting with firms during the PhD does not negatively affect the researcher
training or steer candidates away from an academic career because universities and
firms increasingly share opinions about suitable researcher training for future ‘‘triple
helix workers.’’
The 25 PhD students interviewed in this study find themselves at the intersection
between firm and university interests and traditions. One would expect that this
would pose some significant challenges as the PhD students strive to satisfy the
demands of the university and the firms they interact with. Quite interestingly, this is
rarely experienced as a dilemma by the interviewed PhD students. Rather, their day-
to-day research activities are rarely influenced by industrial demands and their work
is mainly carried out in the universities. The research processes are directed towards
satisfying the academic requirements of the PhD degree, and none of the
interviewed PhD students have experienced that interacting with firms makes it
difficult to satisfy academic demands. It seems that PhD students, when
collaborating with industry, are sheltered from the potential challenges and conflicts
of interest. The empirical study offers some further insight to antecedent and
process factors that shape the PhD students’ experience with collaborative research.
Emerging from the qualitative data material, three main explanations seem to be
particularly relevant for understanding doctoral students’ experiences. First of all,
the firms involved are knowledge intensive, employ staff with research qualifica-
tions and have in most cases interacted with universities for a long time. They know
universities and respect the demands put upon the PhD students and are able to
contribute to making the research projects both academically successful and
industrially relevant. The size and R&D intensity of firms consequently are two
relevant independent variables that likely have an impact on how research
collaborations are carried out. Further empirical research should investigate how
firm characteristics are related to how collaborative research involving PhD students
is designed, implemented and coordinated.

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 479

Second, the university professors who develop collaborative research projects

involving PhD students often have a lot of experience in this type of research and
are able to handle some of the most controversial aspects of collaborative research.
Industry experience stemming from earlier collaboration experience is a key
independent variable because the academic supervisor shapes the PhD students’
collaboration experience to a large extent. Prior research has also shown that
university professors who support a large number of graduate students are more
likely to interact with industry and have more positive attitudes towards industry
interaction (Bozeman and Corley 2004; Boardman and Ponomariov 2009).
Supporting a number of graduate students means that the professor has access to
a larger network of scientists outside academia and a pool of human resources that
makes the research group more attractive as a partner to industry and more
motivated to do so for the purpose of providing funding and career opportunities for
the graduate students (Boardman and Ponomariov 2009). But how the academic
supervisor facilitates and develops relevant research projects and researcher training
in collaboration between a firm and university is a key question that needs to be
empirically explored in greater detail.
Third, the firms involved rarely have very high stakes in research carried out in
collaborative research, particularly research that involves PhD students. The
research projects are research driven rather than aiming at being directly applicable
in industry. None of the students experienced that firms eagerly await the results of
the research projects, and they rarely experienced restrictions on publications. But,
on the other hand, since the research projects are seldom directly relevant for
industry, some of the students experienced what they interpret as lack of interest and
commitment by the firms. Organizational commitment seems to be a central
variable for explaining PhD students’ experiences in collaborative research (Butcher
and Jeffrey 2007).
Organizational commitment seems be a salient challenge in cross-sector
collaborations (Barnes et al. 2002; Mora-Valentin et al. 2004), and commitment
seems to be one of the variables with a significant impact on how collaborations are
perceived by the researchers involved (Mora-Valentin et al. 2004). Commitment
concerns the parties’ willingness to contribute resources to the partnership and
support and attention given to the relationship by the parties over time. In the
context of research collaborations, the parties contribute personnel resources, time,
attention, knowledge, financial resources, etc. to the collaboration over time. For the
interviewed PhD students, lack of commitment is manifested in loss of initial
contacts and loss of networks in the firms. The result of this is often a breakdown in
the collaboration process. But this does not necessarily mean that the research
projects and the PhD students are not successful. Rather, the projects continue
without much collaboration and the PhD students are able to complete their research
projects and publish their research results. Other studies also indicated that
commitment as well as trust does not necessarily have an impact on research
productivity, but influences the participants’ assessment of how successful the
collaboration has been (Porac et al. 2004). What implications these breakdowns in
collaboration have for the firms is an interesting issue for further research, which
also needs to be seen in light of the motivation the firms have for entering

123
480 T. Thune

collaborative research with universities. Thus, the perceived importance of the

research project for the firm, which also is related to commitment to the research
collaboration over time, is a central independent variable and should be further
explored empirically. But the issue of commitment and its impact on the
collaboration climate and perceived success of collaborative research is not only
of importance for research on university-industry relations. These questions might
be equally important for all types of collaborative research and have implications
for the emerging team science perspective. Consequently, the impact of breakdown
in communication on PhD students’ research needs to be addressed within a broader
framework, also including data from PhD students in multidisciplinary team science
contexts.
Research on cross-sector collaboration has just recently started to handle issues
connected to the softer aspects of collaboration including developments in
researcher training contexts. Most of the present knowledge is based on empirical
studies of PhD students, and often based on self-reported experiences in surveys. To
gain further knowledge about how collaborations involving students are developed
and carried out, and the impact that collaborations have for the universities, firms
and for the students themselves, we need more extensive datasets and preferably
data from all key participants involved. Since in many cases it seems that the
academic supervisor and the firm develop constructive learning arenas that shelter
the students from the potential conflicts of interest and provide the students with
relevant learning experiences, further studies should focus on how academic
supervisors handle these issues. A related topic concerns how the supervisors
facilitate the translation of different demands and fields of knowledge and generate
research projects that are both academically and industrially relevant. A related
research question concerns how this process changes the research topics pursued by
PhD students and the potential impact on the competencies they acquire. Further
knowledge on how the doctoral students experience this translation process and the
role that the firm contract person or ‘champion’ plays in this process is also relevant.
Another area of research concerns learning outcomes and the extent to which PhD
students, who undergo researcher training in the triple helix context, gain other areas
of competence than non-collaborating doctoral students. Further empirical knowl-
edge in this area would also strengthen present research within the team science
perspective and present research on transdisciplinary researcher training (Nash
2008).
More empirical studies are also needed on firm involvement in collaborative
research, particularly focusing on their motivation, experiences and routines for
handling collaborative research involving PhD students. In the present study, the
type of collaborative relationship (fully private vs partly publicly funded collab-
orative research projects) seems to have a significant impact on the collaboration, in
terms of what research goals are pursued, how the research projects are developed
and the freedom of choice for the PhD students in pursuing their own research
interests. There also seems to be a relationship between the type of collaborative
project and firm commitment to the collaborative project, where firms who have
invested financial resources in the partnership are more committed to the
relationship, which influences the collaboration experience. But this is also related

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 481

to firm size and importance of the scientific knowledge for the firm. This means that
there is a complex relationship between key independent variables. Overall, the
relationship between key antecedent and process variables needs to be more fully
understood. A better understanding will also improve knowledge on the effects of
researcher training in collaborative contexts. Studies on study and career outcomes
should be further explored in further research on collaborative researcher training
for future ‘‘triple helix workers.’’

Acknowledgments The paper reports on a research project funded by the Norwegian Ministry of
Science and Education. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also go to the two anonymous
reviewers who provided insightful comments on the paper. A preliminary version of the paper was
presented at the Triple Helix 7 conference in Glasgow in June 2009. Any mistakes or omissions remain
the sole responsibility of the author.

References

Auriol, Laudeline. 2007. Labour market characteristics and international mobility of doctorate holders:
Results for seven countries, STI Working paper 2007/2. Paris: OECD.
Barnes, Tina, Ian Pashby, and Anne Gibbons. 2002. Effective university–industry interaction: A
multicase evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal 20(3):
272–285.
Behrens, Teresa R., and Denis O. Gray. 2001. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact
of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome.
Research Policy 30: 179–199.
Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabell M.B. Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between
universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37: 1837–1853.
Boardman, P. Craig, and Branco L. Ponomariov. 2009. University researchers working with private
companies. Technovation 29: 142–153.
Borell-Damian, Lidia. 2009. Collaborative doctoral education. University–Industry partnerships for
enhancing knowledge exchange. European University Association.
Bozeman, Barry, and Elisabeth Corley. 2004. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for
scientific and human capital. Research Policy 36: 694–707.
Butcher, Juliette, and Paul Jeffrey, 2007. A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions of
successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects. Research Policy 36: 1239–1250.
Cohen, Wesley M., Richard Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2003. Links and impacts: the influence of public
research on industrial R&D. In Aldo Geuna, Ammon Salter, and W. Edward Steinmueller. Science
and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Cruz-Castro, Laura, and Luis Sanz-Menedez. 2005. The employment of PhDs in firms: Trajectories,
mobility and innovation. Research Evaluation 14(1): 57–69.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management
Review 14(4): 532–550.
Enders, Jürgen, and Egbert de Weert. 2004. Science, training and career: Changing modes of knowledge
production and labour markets. Higher Education Policy 17: 135–152.
Enders, Jürgen. 2005. Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transfor-
mation of academic work. Higher Education 46: 119–133.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and
‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29:
109–123.
Etzkowitz, Henry, et al. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of
ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.
European Commission. 2003. Researchers in the European Research Area: One profession, multiple
careers. Brussels: European Commission.

123
482 T. Thune

Forsknings-og Innovasjonsstyrelsen. 2007. The industrial PhD. An effective tool for innovation and
knowledge sharing. Denmark: Copenhagen.
Gemme, Brigitte, & Yves Gringas. 2004. Training a new breed of researchers, inside and outside
universities. Working paper presented at colloquium on research and higher education policy, Paris:
UNESCO.
Gluck, Michael E., David, Blumenthal, and A. Michael Soto. 1987. University–industry relationships in
the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy 16: 327–336.
Graversen, Ebbe K, and Kenny Friis-Jensen. 2001. Job mobility implications of the HRST definition:
Illustrated with empirical numbers from register data. Innovative people: mobility of skilled
personnel in national innovation systems. Paris: OECD rapport.
Hall, Kara L., et al. 2008. Moving the science of team science forward. Collaboration and creativity.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: S243–S249.
Harman, Kay. 2004. Producing ‘industry-ready’ doctorates: Australia Cooperative Research Centre
approaches to doctoral education. Studies in Continuing Education 26(3): 387–404.
Harman, Kay. 2008. Challenging traditional research training culture: Industry-oriented doctoral
programs in Australian Cooperative Research Centers. In Cultural perspectives on higher education,
eds. J. Valimaa and O.-H. Ylijoki. Germany: Springer.
King, Nigel. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative
methods in organizational research, eds. Catherine Cassel, and Gillian Symon. London: Sage.
Kyvik, Svein, and Terje Olsen. 2007. Doktorgradsutdanning og karrieremuligheter. NIFU STEP Report
Nr. 35/2007. Oslo: NIFU STEP.
Lam, Alice. 2000. Skills formation in the knowledge-based economy: Mode 2 knowledge and the extended
internal labour market. Paper presented at Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics June
15–17, 2000, Denmark.
Louis, Karen Seashore, et al. 2007. Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and
organizational climate. The Journal of Higher Education 78(3): 311–336.
Mangematin, Vincent, and Stephane Robin. 2003. The two faces of PhD students: Management of early
careers of French PhDs in life sciences. Science and Public Policy 30(6): 405–414.
Mangematin, Vincent. 2000. PhD job market: professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD.
Research Policy 29: 741–756.
Metcalfe, Janet. 2007. The changing nature of doctoral programmes. Presentation for European
University Association, DOC-CAREERS project Workshop on Transferable Skills, Brussels.
Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder, and Ulrich Schmoch. 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry
interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27: 835–851.
Mora-Valentin, Eva M., Angeles Montoro-Sanches, and Luis A. Guerras-Martin. 2004. Determining
factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations.
Research Policy 33: 17–40.
Nash, Justin M. 2008. Transdisciplinary Training. Key components and prerequisites for success.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 133–140.
Porac, Joseph F., et al. 2004. Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication
patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams.
Research Policy 33: 661–678.
Ranga, Liana Marina, Joost Miedema, and Rene Jorna. 2008. Enhancing the innovative capacity of small
firms through triple helix interactions: Challenges and opportunities. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 20(6): 697–716.
Rappert, Brian, Andrew Webster, and David Charles. 1999. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:
academic–industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28: 873–890.
Salminen-Karlsson, Minna, and Lillemor Wallgren. 2008. ‘‘The interaction of academic and industrial
supervisors in graduate research. An investigation of industrial research schools’’ Higher Education
56: 77–93.
Schartinger, Doris, et al. 2002. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria:
sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy 31: 303–328.
Schofield, Janet W. 2002. Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In The qualitative
researcher’s companion, eds. A. Michael Huberman and Matthew B. Miles. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Slaughter, Sheila, et al. 2002. The ‘‘Traffic’’ in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of
exchange between academe and industry. Science Technology and Human Values 27(2): 282–312.
Stokols, Daniel, et al. 2008. The ecology of team science. Understanding contextual influences on
transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 96–115.

123
The Training of ‘‘Triple Helix Workers’’? 483

Thune, Taran. 2006. Formation of research collaboration between universities and firms. Series of
dissertations, No 8/2006 Oslo: The Norwegian School of Management.
Thune, Taran. 2009. Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the literature.
Higher Education 58: 637–651.
Vastag, Brian. 2008. Assembly work. Nature 435: 422–423.
Wallgren, Lillemor, and Lars Owe Dahlgren. 2005. Doctoral education as social practice for knowledge
development. Conditions and demands encountered by industry PhD students. Industry and Higher
Education 19: 433–443.
Wallgren, Lillemor, and Lars Owe Dahlgren. 2007. Industrial doctoral students as brokers between
industry and academia. Industry and Higher Education 21: 195–210.

123