Tensions in University-Industry Relationships: Dynamics for Knowledge Transfer.

This paper describes the tensions within the university and industry relationship. Tensions arise due to the distinct types of knowledge, diverse interests and agendas held by different parties within this unique relationship. Many of these tensions are captured in established debates such as the relative importance of rigour or relevance in research; theory versus practice; nature of knowledge versus knowledge application; exploitation versus exploration; questions around the benefits of supporting pure or applied research; and/or the expectations surrounding the activities of academics to support industry i.e. the academic-practitioner relationship. As a result, the dual demands are challenging to meet which creates a gap between the two. These tensions have been mostly presented and discussed as dualisms, often resulting in contradictions and paradoxes that need to be resolved. We argue that these tensions are indeed complementary or can be expressed as dualities. As such, contradictions and paradoxes should be accepted and analysed as being inherent in university-industry relationship. Thus, we address the seminal questions on how to bridge the theory-practice divide and produce knowledge in society. By moving away from dualism and employing duality we discuss the nuances inherent in academic-practitioner engagement. The paper integrates relevant literature to propose a framework for understanding the tensions in the gap. It explores the strain inherent in engaging diverse views rather than ways to eliminate the gap. Thus, it employs arbitrage by espousing duality whilst using multi-method approach to examine the academic-practitioner engagement. Our contribution to knowledge management is that the dynamics inherent in contradictions and paradoxes aid rather than hinder knowledge transfer. This paper concludes by arguing that strategies for literal knowledge transfer as means to bridge the theory-practice divide are failed strategies. The strategies should be replaced with approaches around collaboration through arbitrage -- espousing duality without diminishing the place or importance of dualism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]