Ivory Tower or Collaborative Innovation Platform? – Comparing MSc Theses in Engineering and Business Education

Ivory Tower or Collaborative Innovation Platform? – Comparing MSc Theses in Engineering and Business Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Ivory Tower or Collaborative Innovation Platform? – Comparing MSc Theses in Engineering and Business Education Lars Bengtsson, Carl-Johan Asplund This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The economic and social impact from university-industry collaboration activities depend on its incidence. Based on a survey of MSc theses at two faculties, i.e., the engineering and business faculty, a survey to collaborating firms and an interview study of study directors we have showed that the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration activities in terms of collaborative MSc thesis projects is high for the engineering faculty (64%) but low for the business faculty (6%). The study shows that collaborating firms and public organizations benefit mostly from the educational collaborative projects in terms of recruiting students and knowledge transfer, mainly screening and scoping new technologies and ideas. The difference in incidence of university-industry educational collaborative activities between the two faculties is related to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner. We conclude that teachers and students at the engineering faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a platform for collaboration with firms and organizations to facilitate students’ transfer to work life, learning professional skills as well as transfer of innovative knowledge to industry. The teachers and students at the business faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as part of the students’ education of learning research skills with limited contact and interaction with industry, i.e., holding an ivory tower attitude towards external contacts and impact on the society. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction University-Industry collaboration can be divided into two major forms based on the university’s traditional missions: university-industry collaboration focusing on Research & Development (R&D) activities and university-industry collaboration focusing on educational activities [ 1 – 3 ]. The vast amount of academic research on university-industry collaboration focusses on university-industry R&D collaboration while only a limited number of studies has focused on university-industry educational collaboration [ 1 – 3 ]. However, there are several reasons why university-industry educational collaborations are important for social and economic impact such as the growth of the knowledge-intensive service sectors including the ICT sectors in the EU and US economies [ 4 – 5 ], sectors that rely heavily on recruiting employees with a higher education such as engineers, managers and lawyers. In addition, today’s work life sees increased levels of project work in multidisciplinary teams, networking with other organizations, global workplaces and rapid technological development which requires development of various hard skills, such as skills related to use of ICT-tools, as well as soft skills, e.g., communication and collaboration skills [ 4 , 6 ]. Many of these skills can be trained in various ways in university-industry educational collaborative projects [ 6 , 7 ]. Prior research on university-industry educational collaboration activities acknowledges educational activities as facilitating transfer of talented educated students and technical and innovative knowledge for the industry [ 8 – 10 ]. A study by De La Torre et al. [ 11 ] shows that firms, especially small- and medium-sized firms, do not see universities primarily as technology or R&D-partners but rather as providers of education and students. Collaborative MSc theses, project work and internships play a crucial role in facilitating knowledge transfer and interactive learning between universities and industry [ 8 ]. Educational collaboration manifests in three forms: 1) collaboration with external stakeholders to develop curriculums [e.g., 12–13], 2) involvement in teaching and learning processes [e.g.,1], and 3) activities facilitating the transition between studies and working life [e.g.,14]. Regarding involvement in teaching, learning and transition to working life MSc theses and student project works in collaboration with firms and organizations are important modalities, especially in the Nordic countries [ 1 , 15 – 17 ]. As mentioned, research on university-industry collaboration has mainly focused on R&D-collaboration rather than educational collaboration as evidenced by recent reviews of research on university-industry collaboration [ 2 , 3 , 18 , 19 ]. Research on university-industry R&D collaboration reveals that large firms dominate [ 20 ] on the industry side, while there is an uneven distribution of interest and experience on the university-side [ 2 , 21 ]. Faculty members in engineering, medical science and natural science disciplines exhibit more favourable attitudes towards regional economic development, academic entrepreneurship, patenting, and licensing compared to those in social sciences and humanities [ 2 , 21 , 22 ]. Empirical investigations on university-industry educational collaboration into these aspects remain limited, with some exceptions [ 1 , 8 , 15 – 17 , 23 ]. Recent reviews of research on educational collaboration between university and industry [ 2 , 3 , 16 , 18 , 19 ]. highlight the dependence on mainly case studies and a scarcity of more systematic studies on the knowledge transfer resulting from students' theses, including their transition to the workforce and knowledge transfer to established and new firms. Given the relative paucity of systematic research on university-industry educational collaboration, our study aims to empirically investigate the incidence and patterns of knowledge transfer from university-industry educational collaboration activities. Given the uneven interest in university-industry collaboration on the university side, we will investigate the incidence and patterns of knowledge transfer at two major faculties - the engineering faculty and the business faculty. Specifically, we seek to answer the following research questions: How does the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration, in terms of collaborative MSc theses, differ between the engineering faculty compared to the business faculty? Why do firms and public organizations collaborate in education with the engineering faculty and the business faculty? What type of innovative knowledge is transferred to the firms and public organizations in the educational collaboration activities? Our findings confirm the prevalence of a similar pattern in educational collaboration as observed in prior university-industry R&D collaboration research [ 2 , 20 , 21 , 23 ]. Notably, there is substantial activity in the engineering faculty, while educational collaboration at the business faculty remains limited. Solving problems and recruiting students are the main reasons for collaborating firms and organizations at the engineering faculty, while the reason to collaborate with the business faculty is to keep relations with the university. The knowledge transfer to industry from the engineering faculty is primarily in the form of student recruitment and transfer of technological knowledge in the early stages of the innovation process, i.e., screening and scoping of new technologies. Study directors at the two faculties confirm these results, relating the difference in incidence of university-industry educational collaborative activities between the two faculties to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner. The subsequent sections of the paper include a brief review of prior research on patterns of university-industry R&D collaboration and educational collaboration, an overview of the empirical context and MSc thesis surveys, collaborating firms and organizations’ survey, and interview study of study directors, presentation of results, and a discussion thereof. The paper concludes with implications for university leadership, as well as recommendations for future research on university-industry educational collaboration. 2. Theoretical background Previous investigations into university-industry R&D collaboration have revealed significant variations in attitudes towards collaboration with industry and its impact across different faculties. Goldstein's [ 21 ] comprehensive survey, encompassing 71 U.S. universities and eight distinct disciplines, identified engineering disciplines, such as Computer Science and Chemistry Engineering, as exhibiting the most favourable attitudes. These attitudes were particularly evident in issues related to the university's role in regional economic development, direct commercialization of research, and provision of start-up assistance. In contrast, social science disciplines (economics and political science) and humanities disciplines (English, History) displayed more critical attitudes towards various collaborative and entrepreneurial activities. Bonaccorsi et al. [ 23 ] extended this exploration to Italy, highlighting that universities specializing in applied sciences and engineering positively influenced regional new venture firm creation, particularly for service firms. However, social sciences and humanities had limited impact on new venture creation. While these studies did not explicitly focus on business schools and management research, they included disciplines, such as economics and social sciences, that share similarities with business and management research. The persisting difference in impact on firm innovation, entrepreneurial activities, and regional economic development between faculties may be attributed to various factors. Goldstein [ 21 ] suggests that differences in the ethics of open science, beliefs about university involvement in entrepreneurship, and perceived inefficiency in contributing to firm innovation and regional economic development may play a role. While university-industry R&D collaboration research primarily emphasizes the dominance of engineering and natural sciences, with social sciences and humanities playing a marginal role, empirical research on educational collaboration's actual impact and knowledge transfer to the industry is limited. While a handful of studies [ 1 , 8 , 15 – 17 , 23 ] focus on the benefits of internships, student projects and MSc theses in engineering and natural sciences, none of them provide a comparative perspective with social sciences and humanities. These studies investigate university-industry educational collaboration activities only in technical and natural science faculties. Thus, there is a lack of research specifically investigating MSc theses and student projects in different faculties, comparing technical and natural science faculties with social sciences and humanities. Moreover, how the social and economic impact differ between these different faculties due to knowledge transfer in such educational collaborations have not been previously researched. In terms of social and economic impact for the industry from educational collaboration activities, extant research [ 1 , 8 , 15 – 17 , 23 ] focus on two main impacts: 1) exposure to and recruitment of educated students, and 2) technical support and transfer of innovative knowledge. Kunttu’s [ 15 ] and Asplund and Bengtsson’s [ 17 ] studies are so far the only empirical studies we have found that specifically has studied the impact from the transfer of academic knowledge in MSc thesis projects and its impact on the firm’s innovation knowledge. Kunttu’s study [ 15 ] does however not specify the character of innovative knowledge transferred in the MSc thesis projects, while Asplund and Bengtsson’s [ 17 ] study uses Cooper’s [ 26 ] stage-gate process to characterize innovative knowledge transferred, i.e., screening and scoping of new ideas/technologies, development phases such as developing business concepts, prototypes and testing them, and later phases such as validating prototypes and commercialization. In summary, extant research suggests that university-industry educational collaboration is likely to be dominated by projects related to engineering and natural science faculties. Benefits for the industry partner are likely to be opportunities to recruit graduate students and transfer of innovative knowledge. However, the character of such innovative knowledge, in terms of innovative knowledge related to early phases, development phases or later phases in the innovation process, is not known. 3. Empirical context This study is based on MSc theses completed at a major Swedish university, Lund University. Lund University is one of the largest universities in the Nordic countries, with some 46,000 students at ten faculties. The two largest faculties, in terms of students, are the engineering and business faculty. In the context of higher education in business and engineering degrees in Sweden, compulsory internships are uncommon. Instead, the prevailing practice involves concluding degree programs, both at the bachelor and master levels, with a comprehensive study reported in a bachelor and/or master thesis. Some theses entail collaboration with firms, public organizations, and non-profit entities, while others adopt a more research-oriented approach. However, the precise prevalence of collaborative MSc thesis projects and the distribution of industry partners by type remain undisclosed. This inquiry specifically centres on MSc theses culminating at the conclusion of four or five years of study at the Faculty of Engineering (in Swedish: Lunds Tekniska Högskola, acronym LTH) and the Faculty of Economics and Management (in Swedish: Ekonomihögskolan, acronym LUSEM), both at Sweden’s largest university, Lund University (LU). The Faculty of Engineering stands as the largest faculty at LU, accommodating approximately 7,000 engineering students in 17 educational programs leading to an MSc degree in engineering. The Faculty of Economics and Management, hereafter the business faculty, is the second-largest faculty at LU, hosting around 5,000 students and featuring ten distinct master's programs leading to an MSc degree in economics and management. Within these faculties, thesis projects represent the principal and systematic avenue within undergraduate and graduate degree programs for students to engage with working life. It provides them with the opportunity to apply their knowledge in collaboration with companies or other organizations over an extended period. 4. Method We have undertaken a comprehensive survey encompassing all MSc theses completed at the two major faculties at LU, the engineering and business faculty, throughout the year 2016. The rationale behind surveying all MSc theses in a single year stemmed from the limited scope of prior research on educational collaboration, with the primary objective being to obtain a comprehensive overview of the extent and fundamental characteristics of this phenomenon. Given the resource-intensive nature of covering multiple years, focusing on a singular year was deemed appropriate for this initial exploration. At the engineering faculty 529 MSc theses were identified across 17 departments. At the business faculty, our investigation identified 416 MSc theses distributed across five different departments. In all our MSc thesis survey comprised 945 MSc theses. The coding process involved categorizing all MSc theses based on authorship, subject, title, supervisors, and external collaboration partners (if applicable),. A thesis was categorized as "collaborative" if it explicitly indicated collaboration, commissioning, and/or external supervision involving one or more specific firms or organizations. In instances where collaboration firms or organizations preferred anonymity due to confidentiality concerns, they were coded as "collaborative theses" but excluded from the subsequent survey targeting collaborating firms and organizations. Two researchers coded independently from each other. In only four cases (of 945 MSc theses) they differed in coding, four MSc-theses that were anonymous. These four theses were coded as non-collaborative, and we ended up with 368 collaborative MSc-theses. Interrater reliability was deemed to be satisfactorily for the MSc-survey. The second part of our research comprised telephone interviews with external collaboration partners, including firms and organizations, as well as the specific external supervisors or contact persons mentioned in the MSc theses. In all we identified 368 collaborating firms or organizations. However, not all collaborating firms were known to us. Some of them (28) remained anonymous and in 35 MSc theses we could not identify a contact person, giving us 305 firms or organizations (280 related to the engineering faculty and 25 to the business faculty) that we distributed our telephone survey to. The questionnaire addressed two primary sections of inquiries. The first section encompassed general questions, exploring aspects such as the firm or organization's overarching motivations for engaging in collaborative MSc theses. The second section delved into queries specific to the MSc projects supervised by the contact person, addressing elements such as the thesis's relevance to innovation stages in the product innovation process, implementation of results, and the recruitment of master's students. The third part of our research focused on the directors of the graduate study programs at each department of the engineering and business faculty. Each department has a director of study programs that oversees the department’s courses, as well as their BSc and MSc theses. Of the 22 directors (17 at the engineering faculty and 5 at the business faculty) we conducted personal interviews with 14 study directors (11 at the engineering faculty and 3 at the business faculty). 5. Results The results will be described according to the three parts of our research. First the MSc thesis survey, then the collaborating firm and organization survey and finally the study director interviews. 5.1 MSc thesis survey Of the 945 MSc theses 364 (39%) were coded as collaborative. The difference in the incidence of collaborative theses at the two faculties were significant, as the engineering faculty had 339 collaborative MSc theses (64%) while only 25 MSc theses at the business were coded as collaborative (6%). Overall, the MSc theses from the engineering faculty were usually explicit about the collaborating partner in terms of describing a project task, having an external supervisor from the collaborating firm or organization, and integrating the feedback on the project results from the collaborating firm or organization’s perspective. The collaborative MSc theses from the business faculty were often described as “case studies” and reported both specific results related to the collaborating partner and more general results in relation to the wider population, e.g., industry, region, and/or relevant theory. 5.2. Collaborating firms and organizations survey The survey to collaborating firms yielded 150 answers collaborating with engineering and business students (150/305 = 49.2% response rate), i.e., 139 responses from firms collaborating with engineering students (49.6% response rate) and 11 responses from firms and organizations collaborating with business students (44.0% response rate). As the group of respondents was few from the collaborating firms and organizations related to the business faculty some of the statistical analyses did not seem meaningful to separate between the two faculties, especially when we present the results concerning the characteristics of knowledge transfer. Turning to the collaborating firm and organization survey we asked why the firm involved themselves in MSc thesis projects. The main reasons are listed in Fig. 1 below. As prior research has indicated [ 1 , 8 , 15 – 17 , 23 ] recruiting new employees, solving problems in the firm, get new technological knowledge/management knowledge, and maintaining contact with the education and the university are the most important reasons. For collaborating firms related to the business faculty the most common responses were to get new ideas and maintain relations with the university. On the one hand, the firms and organizations at the engineering faculty generally had a specific agenda for their collaboration, a specific problem to be solved and/or need to recruit new employees. On the other hand, the firms or organizations collaborating with business students had much lower expectations “to get something useful” from the MSc thesis project such as to recruit or learn something new compared to the collaborating companies related to the engineering faculty. Instead, the business faculty collaborating firms and organizations voiced more general reasons such as “employer branding”, i.e., maintaining recognition by students, and being “being a good citizen”, supporting universities and students in their education. About half of the firms and organizations collaborating with the engineering students also gave a job offer to the thesis students (see Fig. 2 ). None of the firms related to the business faculty gave a job offer. Some 67% of the engineering faculty firms and 45% of the business faculty firms reported that they had implemented the results, at least partly, of the MSc thesis project. Thus, MSc thesis projects are a common mechanism for firms and organizations to recruit engineering students and most of them implement the results in part. This is not the case for relatively few firms and organizations collaborating with business students. Concerning knowledge transfer we used a framework of the innovation process called the stage-gate process [ 25 ] dividing the innovation process into six stages: screening of new technology/methods/concepts, scoping of new technology/methods/concepts, development of business case or concept, prototype development, test and validation and commercialization. Most of the engineering theses were related to the initial phases of innovation, i.e., screening new technologies/methods/concepts and scoping new technologies to firm-specific purposes (see Fig. 3 ). For business faculty theses the most common stage was scoping of new technologies/methods/concepts, even though most respondents had trouble with the applicability of these stages in relation to the thesis projects. In line with prior research [ 1 , 8 , 17 ]. the collaborating firm and organization survey showed that the major reasons for firms to collaborate are to recruit graduates, to solve problems and transfer new knowledge. To a large extent job offers are also given by the collaborating firm and results implemented from the MSc theses connected to engineering faculty. This is, however, only true for the engineering faculty MSc theses. For the business faculty theses, the major reason to collaborate is to maintain relations with the university in order to be recognized as an employer and a good citizen supporting university education. Concerning transfer of innovative knowledge, the collaborating firm to the engineering faculty mostly focus projects screening of new technologies. The respondents from the business faculty collaborating firms had trouble answering this question, finding it mostly not applicable. However, if they found it applicable the most common project focused on the scoping of a new technology or knowledge. 5.3. Interviews with study directors The telephone interviews with the directors of study programs at the departments aimed to validate our findings regarding incidence of collaborative MSc theses as well as investigating the objectives for MSc theses, quality issues and support for collaborative MSc theses. We contacted all 22 study directors at the engineering and business faculty and 14 study directors agreed to a telephone interview (11 study directors in engineering and 3 in business faculty giving 64% response rate). Regarding the question of their view on the incidence of collaborative MSc theses at their department the answers correlated well with the incidence of collaborative MSc theses in our MSc thesis survey. The study director at the department of Energy Sciences responded that virtually all (95% − 88% in our survey) of their master theses were done in collaboration with firms or organizations. At the other end of the spectrum at the engineering faculty the study director at department of Immunology responded that no MSc theses (0% − 0% in our survey) were done in collaboration. Overall, the study directors at both the engineering and business departments had a good overview of the incidence pattern of collaborative MSc thesis projects and aligned well with the results in the MSc thesis survey. The question regarding objectives related to master thesis projects resulted in two groups of answers. Several study directors at engineering departments referred to the formal course syllabus stating the objective for degree projects at all engineering programs as: “ The aim of the degree project is for the student to develop and demonstrate the requisite knowledge and skills to work independently as an engineer .” This objective opens for both more work life and firm related projects as well as research-oriented MSc thesis projects. The difference in incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects between departments had according to the study directors to do with the character of the discipline (mostly applied research or mostly basic research) and the orientation of the specific research that was done at the department. Thus, departments with a lot of basic research, such as Physics and Immunology, had a low incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects, while other engineering departments with mostly applied research, such as Industrial Engineering and Management and Energy Sciences, had a high incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects. The study directors at the business faculty also mentioned the formal objective of the course syllabus which states: “ The main objective is to develop students’ ability to conduct an independent scientific study that includes developing relevant research questions, and to design and conduct a study that addresses the research questions based upon appropriate methodological considerations and relevant theories within the areas covered by the master’s program.” This aim makes collaborative MSc thesis projects difficult, especially projects which entails only one company’s or organization’s problem. Problems or research questions which are shared among several companies and/or organizations might still be possible as well as new phenomena that might be tied to individual companies but then motivated by research needs. Thus, most departments at the business faculty had no collaborative MSc thesis projects. The study director at Business Administration department, mentioned that some sub-disciplines such as marketing and entrepreneurship and innovation, had a highly applied and practical character which made it more natural for the teachers to accept collaborative thesis projects. The study director at the Economics department mentioned that the sub discipline of Development Studies had an applied character which also made such collaborative projects more natural. The study directors were also asked if a potential increase in collaborative MSc thesis projects would affect the overall quality of the MSc theses. Seven of the 14 study directors (5 at engineering and 2 at business) thought it would increase the overall quality, but some added that it depended on the supervisors and nature of project. The rest, 7 of the study directors, did not wish to increase the level of collaborative thesis projects, as they thought the current situation was well balanced. However, all study directors perceived that student motivation would increase if more students were allowed to do collaborative MSc thesis projects. In terms of support for collaborative MSc thesis projects, seven study directors, all at the more collaborative intensive engineering departments, said they worked actively with facilitating contacts between firms/organizations and master students, as well as increasing the exposure of the finished master thesis projects both internally and externally. In summary, the study directors confirmed the variation of the incidence of MSc thesis projects between the engineering and business faculty as well as the variation within the engineering faculty. The variation in incidence depends on the formal objectives of the MSc thesis (work life oriented or research oriented), the character of the research at the department (mostly applied or mostly basic research), and the facilitation or not for contacts with firms and organizations. 6. Discussion Our survey of MSc thesis projects at the engineering and business faculty at Lund University have empirically shown that: 1) MSc theses are a frequently used collaboration mechanism between university and industry in engineering education and very limited in business education, 2) collaborating firms and organizations in engineering benefit mainly by recruiting students and by the transfer of technological knowledge, 3) the limited number of collaborating firms and organizations in business benefit mainly by maintaining relations with the university, and 4) the main type of innovative knowledge transferred from the engineering faculty is related to the early innovation phases – screening and scoping of new technologies/knowledge. Moreover, we have shown that: 5) the variation of collaborative master thesis projects depends on the formal objectives of the master thesis (work life or research oriented), 6) the character of the discipline at the department (applied or basic research), and 7) the presence of facilitation activities or not for contacts with firms and organizations. Overall, our research confirms the relative high educational collaboration activity related to the engineering sciences, and the relatively limited activity in university-industry educational collaboration for social sciences, in this case the business faculty, observed earlier for university-industry R&D-collaboration [ 21 ], increasing our understanding of the limited impact and knowledge transfer effects on regional development from social sciences [ 23 ]. Moreover, the empirical results confirm prior findings [ 8 , 15 , 17 ] regarding the main benefits, i.e., recruitment of students and transfer of innovation knowledge of MSc thesis project or other student projects in engineering. Another finding, in relation to prior research [ 17 ], are the results regarding innovative knowledge transfer related to innovation stages, where screening and scoping of new technologies, is the most common type of innovative knowledge transfer. 7. Conclusions and implications for universities The economic and social impact from university-industry collaboration activities depend on its incidence. We have in this study showed that the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration activities in terms of collaborative MSc thesis projects is high for the engineering faculty but low for the business faculty. This result is in line with earlier research on university-industry R&D collaboration. The varying interest and incidence of educational collaborative projects between the engineering and business faculty is by the study directors related to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner. Thus, on the one hand the teachers and students at the engineering faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a platform for collaboration with firms and organizations to facilitate students’ transfer to work life, learning professional skills as well as transfer of innovative knowledge to industry. On the other hand, the teachers and students at the business faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a part of the students’ education learning research skills with limited contact and interaction with industry, i.e., may be interpreted as holding an ivory tower attitude towards external contacts and impact on the society. For universities and faculties that wish to support educational collaboration, to facilitate student transfer from higher education studies to work-life as well as the transfer of innovation-related knowledge, university leadership may wish to facilitate collaborative MSc thesis activities and overall educational collaboration activities further. Obviously, if our findings in this study are valid for other universities, the business faculty and other less collaboration intensive faculties have more work to do than the engineering faculties. The findings of this study form the basis for the following four recommendations to universities and their leadership to increase the incidence of collaborative MSc theses with industry, both large firms and SMEs. 1) If necessary, change the syllabus of the MSc thesis project to allow students to work on projects related to working life, professional development and management issues. 2) University leadership should facilitate the building and maintaining of long-term networks with firms and organizations making better connections and interactive relations in education, primarily with regional firms and organizations. 3) University leadership should facilitate the active marketing of the opportunities of thesis collaboration projects to mainly regional firms, possibly sending them a voucher for an MSc thesis project to be “cashed in” at the career centre or some other relevant university unit. 4) Measure the educational collaboration activities and include key metrics for different type of firms (large, SMEs) and organizations (public, NGOs) activities and follow-up progress over time. 8. Limitations and further research Our results are based on one year’s MSc theses in engineering and business at a major Swedish university, a questionnaire to collaborating firms and organizations and an interview study with departmental study directors. We believe our results are generalizable to the Swedish higher education system as it is rather uniform in the sense that it is state-regulated and for the most part state-organized and funded. The Nordic countries have similar traditions of MSc theses in collaboration with firms and organizations [e.g., 14, 15, 17]. The external validity of the results to business and engineering education in other countries is a question for further research. MSc theses are only one form of educational collaboration focusing on knowledge transfer and facilitation of transfer to work life. Other forms of educational collaboration, such as student written cases [16], student projects and jointly organized courses [15], internships [26], and open innovation centres [23] may also be important educational collaboration forms with industry. To increase our knowledge of university-industry educational collaboration future studies should include more forms of educational collaboration. This is particularly important for countries and universities that do not offer MSc theses in their curriculum. We have not investigated the causal mechanisms between collaborative MSc thesis projects and firm impact. Even though our firm survey gives some insights here, these are partial and do not provide a good understanding of how companies use and utilize MSc thesis projects in their innovation processes. This would require more fine-grained and longitudinal case studies, which we recommend for future studies. Declarations Author Contribution Both authors, L.B and CJ.A. conceptualized the study and designed the method. Data collection was primarily done by CJ.A. Analysis and writing of first draft by L.B. Both authors have edited the paper and reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Funding Declaration This research has been funded by Vinnova grant number 2016-05266. Consent to Participate Declaration Consent to participate declaration: not applicable Consent to Publish declaration Consent to publish declaration: not applicable Ethics Declaration Ethics declaration: not applicable References Thune, T. (2011). Success Factors in Higher Education–Industry Collaboration: A case study of collaboration in the engineering field. Tertiary Education and Management , 17 , 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.552627 Nsanzumuhire, S. U., & Groot, W. (2020). Context perspective on university-industry collaboration processes: A systematic review of literature. Journal of cleaner production , 258 , 120861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120861 Zhuang, T & Shi, J (2024) Engagement, determinants and challenges: a multinational systematic review of education-focused university-industry collaborations, Educational Review, 76:5, 1363-1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2149701 Korhonen-Yrjänheikki, K., Tukiainen, T., & Takala, M. (2007). New challenging approaches to engineering education: enhancing university–industry co-operation. European Journal of Engineering Education , 32 (2), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790601118697 Miles, I. D., Belousova, V., & Chichkanov, N. (2018). Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: Ambiguities and Continuities. Foresight. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-10-2017-0058 Caeiro-Rodríguez, M., Manso-Vázquez, M., Mikic-Fonte, F. A., Llamas-Nistal, M., Fernández-Iglesias, M. J., Tsalapatas, H., ... & Sørensen, L. T. (2021). Teaching soft skills in engineering education: An European perspective. IEEE Access , 9 , 29222-29242. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059516 Popli, N. K., & Singh, R. P. (2024). Enhancing academic outcomes through industry collaboration: our experience with integrating real-world projects into engineering courses. Discover Education , 3 (1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00300-w Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research policy , 37 (8), 1175-1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016 Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research policy , 40 (8), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005 Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’este, P., ... & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research policy , 42 (2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007 de La Torre, E. M., Pérez-Esparrells, C., & Casani, F. (2018). The policy approach for the third mission of universities: the Spanish case (1983–2018). Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies , 18 (1), 13-30. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eaaeerese/v_3a18_3ay2018_3ai_3a1_5f2.htm Fagrell, P., Fahlgren, A., & Gunnarsson, S. (2020). Curriculum development and quality work in higher education in Sweden: The external stakeholder perspective. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education , 2 (1), pp. 28–45. https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc62 Parker, M. A., Walser, T. M., & Dighe, S. (2024). Academic program development: a collaborative and context-sensitive approach. Discover Education , 3 (1), 272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00377-3 Thune, T., & Støren, L. A. (2015). Study and labour market effects of graduate students’ interaction with work organisations during education: A cohort study. Education+ Training , 57 (7), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2014-0126 Kunttu, L. (2017). Educational involvement in innovative university–industry collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7 (12), 14-22. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1124 Asplund, C. J. (2024). University-Industry Educational Collaboration: Knowledge spillovers and spillins through student-written cases and MSc theses. Doctoral dissertation. https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/d3e1db9b-d529-414b-9e79-9aac8075c566 Asplund, C. J., & Bengtsson, L. (2020). Knowledge spillover from master of science theses in engineering education in Sweden. European Journal of Engineering Education , 45 (3), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1604632 Sjöö, K., & Hellström, T. (2019). University–industry collaboration: A literature review and synthesis. Industry and higher education , 33 (4), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219829697 Figueiredo, N.L., Ferreira, J.J.M. (2022). More than meets the partner: a systematic review and agenda for University–Industry cooperation. Manag Rev Q 72 , 231–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00209-2 Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research policy , 33 (8), 1201-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004 Goldstein, H. A. (2010). The ‘entrepreneurial turn’ and regional economic development mission of universities. The Annals of Regional Science , 44 , 83-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0241-z Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 161 , 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284 Lucia, Ó., Burdio, J. M., Acero, J., Barragán, L. A., & Garcia, J. R. (2012). Educational opportunities based on the university-industry synergies in an open innovation framework. European Journal of Engineering Education , 37 (1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.644762 Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics , 41 , 837-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9509-5 Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate® idea‐to‐launch process—update, what's new, and nexgen systems. Journal of product innovation management , 25 (3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x Cook, S. J., Parker, R. S., & Pettijohn, C. E. (2004). The perceptions of interns: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Education for Business , 79 (3), 179-185. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 05 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7270442","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":526964568,"identity":"e6660de1-7c41-4813-a5fc-a5b0c0812dfc","order_by":0,"name":"Lars Bengtsson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lund University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lars","middleName":"","lastName":"Bengtsson","suffix":""},{"id":526964569,"identity":"24f028e1-56b2-4835-a0ab-3b26707f4c25","order_by":1,"name":"Carl-Johan Asplund","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lund University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carl-Johan","middleName":"","lastName":"Asplund","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-01 10:53:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93680065,"identity":"041454be-2217-46dd-865b-f002f5e6479c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:42","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":100338,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"IvorytowerorcollaborationDiscoverEducationfinal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/fcdd3b2b1c380c10e67a5ac6.docx"},{"id":93680072,"identity":"ff595074-24e0-4851-9a58-25b45a6423a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:43","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4513,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d4126608c194c38964156fb5dd12990.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/ee556f3f64e462c2816d2acc.json"},{"id":93680069,"identity":"8d5687b5-034d-4143-9304-dc2d79d5a882","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:42","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":84971,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d4126608c194c38964156fb5dd129901enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/e5c1c9f66d2fb667b0afcd8a.xml"},{"id":93680543,"identity":"9d22b23c-01c4-4e7a-94c4-1aec39090e0e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 12:06:42","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":84570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d4126608c194c38964156fb5dd129901structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/c81f86783265fd4fe4e919d0.xml"},{"id":93680070,"identity":"616f4841-96ec-49d0-9316-32565d0a6569","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:42","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":92314,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/019e9fd59abb42f6a5967c75.html"},{"id":93680073,"identity":"6d982c33-921e-4069-82a7-c94fb4645bab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56341,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFive major reasons to collaborate according to firm responses.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/4d517ab98271fddddece4510.png"},{"id":93680541,"identity":"7915f2c0-8da0-4828-be94-50b2782a9c06","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 12:06:42","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56056,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eJob offers given to thesis students and implementation of thesis results according to firm responses.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/8fde102bd66fd1d7038ecf08.png"},{"id":93680068,"identity":"87bc8888-48b9-4194-bd9b-0108a548b33d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 11:58:42","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe main stage in the innovation process focused in the MSc thesis projects.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/00292189d2487c3edb9f325e.png"},{"id":93681326,"identity":"8b719011-0543-463d-80b6-0656fd43e102","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 12:14:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":624922,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7270442/v1/9725efe0-448b-4061-bcd8-635725072c03.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Ivory Tower or Collaborative Innovation Platform? – Comparing MSc Theses in Engineering and Business Education","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUniversity-Industry collaboration can be divided into two major forms based on the university\u0026rsquo;s traditional missions: university-industry collaboration focusing on Research \u0026amp; Development (R\u0026amp;D) activities and university-industry collaboration focusing on educational activities [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The vast amount of academic research on university-industry collaboration focusses on university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration while only a limited number of studies has focused on university-industry educational collaboration [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. However, there are several reasons why university-industry educational collaborations are important for social and economic impact such as the growth of the knowledge-intensive service sectors including the ICT sectors in the EU and US economies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], sectors that rely heavily on recruiting employees with a higher education such as engineers, managers and lawyers. In addition, today\u0026rsquo;s work life sees increased levels of project work in multidisciplinary teams, networking with other organizations, global workplaces and rapid technological development which requires development of various hard skills, such as skills related to use of ICT-tools, as well as soft skills, e.g., communication and collaboration skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Many of these skills can be trained in various ways in university-industry educational collaborative projects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior research on university-industry educational collaboration activities acknowledges educational activities as facilitating transfer of talented educated students and technical and innovative knowledge for the industry [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR9\" citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. A study by De La Torre et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] shows that firms, especially small- and medium-sized firms, do not see universities primarily as technology or R\u0026amp;D-partners but rather as providers of education and students. Collaborative MSc theses, project work and internships play a crucial role in facilitating knowledge transfer and interactive learning between universities and industry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Educational collaboration manifests in three forms: 1) collaboration with external stakeholders to develop curriculums [e.g., 12\u0026ndash;13], 2) involvement in teaching and learning processes [e.g.,1], and 3) activities facilitating the transition between studies and working life [e.g.,14]. Regarding involvement in teaching, learning and transition to working life MSc theses and student project works in collaboration with firms and organizations are important modalities, especially in the Nordic countries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned, research on university-industry collaboration has mainly focused on R\u0026amp;D-collaboration rather than educational collaboration as evidenced by recent reviews of research on university-industry collaboration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Research on university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration reveals that large firms dominate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] on the industry side, while there is an uneven distribution of interest and experience on the university-side [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Faculty members in engineering, medical science and natural science disciplines exhibit more favourable attitudes towards regional economic development, academic entrepreneurship, patenting, and licensing compared to those in social sciences and humanities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Empirical investigations on university-industry educational collaboration into these aspects remain limited, with some exceptions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Recent reviews of research on educational collaboration between university and industry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. highlight the dependence on mainly case studies and a scarcity of more systematic studies on the knowledge transfer resulting from students' theses, including their transition to the workforce and knowledge transfer to established and new firms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the relative paucity of systematic research on university-industry educational collaboration, our study aims to empirically investigate the incidence and patterns of knowledge transfer from university-industry educational collaboration activities. Given the uneven interest in university-industry collaboration on the university side, we will investigate the incidence and patterns of knowledge transfer at two major faculties - the engineering faculty and the business faculty. Specifically, we seek to answer the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration, in terms of collaborative MSc theses, differ between the engineering faculty compared to the business faculty?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhy do firms and public organizations collaborate in education with the engineering faculty and the business faculty?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat type of innovative knowledge is transferred to the firms and public organizations in the educational collaboration activities?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings confirm the prevalence of a similar pattern in educational collaboration as observed in prior university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Notably, there is substantial activity in the engineering faculty, while educational collaboration at the business faculty remains limited. Solving problems and recruiting students are the main reasons for collaborating firms and organizations at the engineering faculty, while the reason to collaborate with the business faculty is to keep relations with the university. The knowledge transfer to industry from the engineering faculty is primarily in the form of student recruitment and transfer of technological knowledge in the early stages of the innovation process, i.e., screening and scoping of new technologies. Study directors at the two faculties confirm these results, relating the difference in incidence of university-industry educational collaborative activities between the two faculties to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe subsequent sections of the paper include a brief review of prior research on patterns of university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration and educational collaboration, an overview of the empirical context and MSc thesis surveys, collaborating firms and organizations\u0026rsquo; survey, and interview study of study directors, presentation of results, and a discussion thereof. The paper concludes with implications for university leadership, as well as recommendations for future research on university-industry educational collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical background","content":"\u003cp\u003ePrevious investigations into university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration have revealed significant variations in attitudes towards collaboration with industry and its impact across different faculties. Goldstein's [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] comprehensive survey, encompassing 71 U.S. universities and eight distinct disciplines, identified engineering disciplines, such as Computer Science and Chemistry Engineering, as exhibiting the most favourable attitudes. These attitudes were particularly evident in issues related to the university's role in regional economic development, direct commercialization of research, and provision of start-up assistance. In contrast, social science disciplines (economics and political science) and humanities disciplines (English, History) displayed more critical attitudes towards various collaborative and entrepreneurial activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBonaccorsi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] extended this exploration to Italy, highlighting that universities specializing in applied sciences and engineering positively influenced regional new venture firm creation, particularly for service firms. However, social sciences and humanities had limited impact on new venture creation. While these studies did not explicitly focus on business schools and management research, they included disciplines, such as economics and social sciences, that share similarities with business and management research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe persisting difference in impact on firm innovation, entrepreneurial activities, and regional economic development between faculties may be attributed to various factors. Goldstein [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] suggests that differences in the ethics of open science, beliefs about university involvement in entrepreneurship, and perceived inefficiency in contributing to firm innovation and regional economic development may play a role. While university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration research primarily emphasizes the dominance of engineering and natural sciences, with social sciences and humanities playing a marginal role, empirical research on educational collaboration's actual impact and knowledge transfer to the industry is limited. While a handful of studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] focus on the benefits of internships, student projects and MSc theses in engineering and natural sciences, none of them provide a comparative perspective with social sciences and humanities. These studies investigate university-industry educational collaboration activities only in technical and natural science faculties. Thus, there is a lack of research specifically investigating MSc theses and student projects in different faculties, comparing technical and natural science faculties with social sciences and humanities. Moreover, how the social and economic impact differ between these different faculties due to knowledge transfer in such educational collaborations have not been previously researched.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of social and economic impact for the industry from educational collaboration activities, extant research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] focus on two main impacts: 1) exposure to and recruitment of educated students, and 2) technical support and transfer of innovative knowledge. Kunttu\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and Asplund and Bengtsson\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] studies are so far the only empirical studies we have found that specifically has studied the impact from the transfer of academic knowledge in MSc thesis projects and its impact on the firm\u0026rsquo;s innovation knowledge. Kunttu\u0026rsquo;s study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] does however not specify the character of innovative knowledge transferred in the MSc thesis projects, while Asplund and Bengtsson\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] study uses Cooper\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] stage-gate process to characterize innovative knowledge transferred, i.e., screening and scoping of new ideas/technologies, development phases such as developing business concepts, prototypes and testing them, and later phases such as validating prototypes and commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, extant research suggests that university-industry educational collaboration is likely to be dominated by projects related to engineering and natural science faculties. Benefits for the industry partner are likely to be opportunities to recruit graduate students and transfer of innovative knowledge. However, the character of such innovative knowledge, in terms of innovative knowledge related to early phases, development phases or later phases in the innovation process, is not known.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Empirical context","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is based on MSc theses completed at a major Swedish university, Lund University. Lund University is one of the largest universities in the Nordic countries, with some 46,000 students at ten faculties. The two largest faculties, in terms of students, are the engineering and business faculty. In the context of higher education in business and engineering degrees in Sweden, compulsory internships are uncommon. Instead, the prevailing practice involves concluding degree programs, both at the bachelor and master levels, with a comprehensive study reported in a bachelor and/or master thesis. Some theses entail collaboration with firms, public organizations, and non-profit entities, while others adopt a more research-oriented approach. However, the precise prevalence of collaborative MSc thesis projects and the distribution of industry partners by type remain undisclosed. This inquiry specifically centres on MSc theses culminating at the conclusion of four or five years of study at the Faculty of Engineering (in Swedish: Lunds Tekniska H\u0026ouml;gskola, acronym LTH) and the Faculty of Economics and Management (in Swedish: Ekonomih\u0026ouml;gskolan, acronym LUSEM), both at Sweden\u0026rsquo;s largest university, Lund University (LU).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Faculty of Engineering stands as the largest faculty at LU, accommodating approximately 7,000 engineering students in 17 educational programs leading to an MSc degree in engineering. The Faculty of Economics and Management, hereafter the business faculty, is the second-largest faculty at LU, hosting around 5,000 students and featuring ten distinct master's programs leading to an MSc degree in economics and management. Within these faculties, thesis projects represent the principal and systematic avenue within undergraduate and graduate degree programs for students to engage with working life. It provides them with the opportunity to apply their knowledge in collaboration with companies or other organizations over an extended period.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe have undertaken a comprehensive survey encompassing all MSc theses completed at the two major faculties at LU, the engineering and business faculty, throughout the year 2016. The rationale behind surveying all MSc theses in a single year stemmed from the limited scope of prior research on educational collaboration, with the primary objective being to obtain a comprehensive overview of the extent and fundamental characteristics of this phenomenon. Given the resource-intensive nature of covering multiple years, focusing on a singular year was deemed appropriate for this initial exploration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the engineering faculty 529 MSc theses were identified across 17 departments. At the business faculty, our investigation identified 416 MSc theses distributed across five different departments. In all our MSc thesis survey comprised 945 MSc theses. The coding process involved categorizing all MSc theses based on authorship, subject, title, supervisors, and external collaboration partners (if applicable),. A thesis was categorized as \"collaborative\" if it explicitly indicated collaboration, commissioning, and/or external supervision involving one or more specific firms or organizations. In instances where collaboration firms or organizations preferred anonymity due to confidentiality concerns, they were coded as \"collaborative theses\" but excluded from the subsequent survey targeting collaborating firms and organizations. Two researchers coded independently from each other. In only four cases (of 945 MSc theses) they differed in coding, four MSc-theses that were anonymous. These four theses were coded as non-collaborative, and we ended up with 368 collaborative MSc-theses. Interrater reliability was deemed to be satisfactorily for the MSc-survey.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second part of our research comprised telephone interviews with external collaboration partners, including firms and organizations, as well as the specific external supervisors or contact persons mentioned in the MSc theses. In all we identified 368 collaborating firms or organizations. However, not all collaborating firms were known to us. Some of them (28) remained anonymous and in 35 MSc theses we could not identify a contact person, giving us 305 firms or organizations (280 related to the engineering faculty and 25 to the business faculty) that we distributed our telephone survey to. The questionnaire addressed two primary sections of inquiries. The first section encompassed general questions, exploring aspects such as the firm or organization's overarching motivations for engaging in collaborative MSc theses. The second section delved into queries specific to the MSc projects supervised by the contact person, addressing elements such as the thesis's relevance to innovation stages in the product innovation process, implementation of results, and the recruitment of master's students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third part of our research focused on the directors of the graduate study programs at each department of the engineering and business faculty. Each department has a director of study programs that oversees the department\u0026rsquo;s courses, as well as their BSc and MSc theses. Of the 22 directors (17 at the engineering faculty and 5 at the business faculty) we conducted personal interviews with 14 study directors (11 at the engineering faculty and 3 at the business faculty).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results will be described according to the three parts of our research. First the MSc thesis survey, then the collaborating firm and organization survey and finally the study director interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.1 MSc thesis survey\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 945 MSc theses 364 (39%) were coded as collaborative. The difference in the incidence of collaborative theses at the two faculties were significant, as the engineering faculty had 339 collaborative MSc theses (64%) while only 25 MSc theses at the business were coded as collaborative (6%). Overall, the MSc theses from the engineering faculty were usually explicit about the collaborating partner in terms of describing a project task, having an external supervisor from the collaborating firm or organization, and integrating the feedback on the project results from the collaborating firm or organization\u0026rsquo;s perspective. The collaborative MSc theses from the business faculty were often described as \u0026ldquo;case studies\u0026rdquo; and reported both specific results related to the collaborating partner and more general results in relation to the wider population, e.g., industry, region, and/or relevant theory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Collaborating firms and organizations survey\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe survey to collaborating firms yielded 150 answers collaborating with engineering and business students (150/305\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49.2% response rate), i.e., 139 responses from firms collaborating with engineering students (49.6% response rate) and 11 responses from firms and organizations collaborating with business students (44.0% response rate). As the group of respondents was few from the collaborating firms and organizations related to the business faculty some of the statistical analyses did not seem meaningful to separate between the two faculties, especially when we present the results concerning the characteristics of knowledge transfer. Turning to the collaborating firm and organization survey we asked why the firm involved themselves in MSc thesis projects. The main reasons are listed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below. As prior research has indicated [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] recruiting new employees, solving problems in the firm, get new technological knowledge/management knowledge, and maintaining contact with the education and the university are the most important reasons. For collaborating firms related to the business faculty the most common responses were to get new ideas and maintain relations with the university. On the one hand, the firms and organizations at the engineering faculty generally had a specific agenda for their collaboration, a specific problem to be solved and/or need to recruit new employees. On the other hand, the firms or organizations collaborating with business students had much lower expectations \u0026ldquo;to get something useful\u0026rdquo; from the MSc thesis project such as to recruit or learn something new compared to the collaborating companies related to the engineering faculty. Instead, the business faculty collaborating firms and organizations voiced more general reasons such as \u0026ldquo;employer branding\u0026rdquo;, i.e., maintaining recognition by students, and being \u0026ldquo;being a good citizen\u0026rdquo;, supporting universities and students in their education.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbout half of the firms and organizations collaborating with the engineering students also gave a job offer to the thesis students (see Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). None of the firms related to the business faculty gave a job offer. Some 67% of the engineering faculty firms and 45% of the business faculty firms reported that they had implemented the results, at least partly, of the MSc thesis project. Thus, MSc thesis projects are a common mechanism for firms and organizations to recruit engineering students and most of them implement the results in part. This is not the case for relatively few firms and organizations collaborating with business students.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcerning knowledge transfer we used a framework of the innovation process called the stage-gate process [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] dividing the innovation process into six stages: screening of new technology/methods/concepts, scoping of new technology/methods/concepts, development of business case or concept, prototype development, test and validation and commercialization. Most of the engineering theses were related to the initial phases of innovation, i.e., screening new technologies/methods/concepts and scoping new technologies to firm-specific purposes (see Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). For business faculty theses the most common stage was scoping of new technologies/methods/concepts, even though most respondents had trouble with the applicability of these stages in relation to the thesis projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn line with prior research [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. the collaborating firm and organization survey showed that the major reasons for firms to collaborate are to recruit graduates, to solve problems and transfer new knowledge. To a large extent job offers are also given by the collaborating firm and results implemented from the MSc theses connected to engineering faculty. This is, however, only true for the engineering faculty MSc theses. For the business faculty theses, the major reason to collaborate is to maintain relations with the university in order to be recognized as an employer and a good citizen supporting university education. Concerning transfer of innovative knowledge, the collaborating firm to the engineering faculty mostly focus projects screening of new technologies. The respondents from the business faculty collaborating firms had trouble answering this question, finding it mostly not applicable. However, if they found it applicable the most common project focused on the scoping of a new technology or knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Interviews with study directors\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe telephone interviews with the directors of study programs at the departments aimed to validate our findings regarding incidence of collaborative MSc theses as well as investigating the objectives for MSc theses, quality issues and support for collaborative MSc theses. We contacted all 22 study directors at the engineering and business faculty and 14 study directors agreed to a telephone interview (11 study directors in engineering and 3 in business faculty giving 64% response rate).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegarding the question of their view on the incidence of collaborative MSc theses at their department the answers correlated well with the incidence of collaborative MSc theses in our MSc thesis survey. The study director at the department of Energy Sciences responded that virtually all (95% \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;88% in our survey) of their master theses were done in collaboration with firms or organizations. At the other end of the spectrum at the engineering faculty the study director at department of Immunology responded that no MSc theses (0% \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0% in our survey) were done in collaboration. Overall, the study directors at both the engineering and business departments had a good overview of the incidence pattern of collaborative MSc thesis projects and aligned well with the results in the MSc thesis survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe question regarding objectives related to master thesis projects resulted in two groups of answers. Several study directors at engineering departments referred to the formal course syllabus stating the objective for degree projects at all engineering programs as: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe aim of the degree project is for the student to develop and demonstrate the requisite knowledge and skills to work independently as an engineer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; This objective opens for both more work life and firm related projects as well as research-oriented MSc thesis projects. The difference in incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects between departments had according to the study directors to do with the character of the discipline (mostly applied research or mostly basic research) and the orientation of the specific research that was done at the department. Thus, departments with a lot of basic research, such as Physics and Immunology, had a low incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects, while other engineering departments with mostly applied research, such as Industrial Engineering and Management and Energy Sciences, had a high incidence of collaborative MSc thesis projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study directors at the business faculty also mentioned the formal objective of the course syllabus which states: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe main objective is to develop students\u0026rsquo; ability to conduct an independent scientific study that includes developing relevant research questions, and to design and conduct a study that addresses the research questions based upon appropriate methodological considerations and relevant theories within the areas covered by the master\u0026rsquo;s program.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This aim makes collaborative MSc thesis projects difficult, especially projects which entails only one company\u0026rsquo;s or organization\u0026rsquo;s problem. Problems or research questions which are shared among several companies and/or organizations might still be possible as well as new phenomena that might be tied to individual companies but then motivated by research needs. Thus, most departments at the business faculty had no collaborative MSc thesis projects. The study director at Business Administration department, mentioned that some sub-disciplines such as marketing and entrepreneurship and innovation, had a highly applied and practical character which made it more natural for the teachers to accept collaborative thesis projects. The study director at the Economics department mentioned that the sub discipline of Development Studies had an applied character which also made such collaborative projects more natural.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study directors were also asked if a potential increase in collaborative MSc thesis projects would affect the overall quality of the MSc theses. Seven of the 14 study directors (5 at engineering and 2 at business) thought it would increase the overall quality, but some added that it depended on the supervisors and nature of project. The rest, 7 of the study directors, did not wish to increase the level of collaborative thesis projects, as they thought the current situation was well balanced. However, all study directors perceived that student motivation would increase if more students were allowed to do collaborative MSc thesis projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn terms of support for collaborative MSc thesis projects, seven study directors, all at the more collaborative intensive engineering departments, said they worked actively with facilitating contacts between firms/organizations and master students, as well as increasing the exposure of the finished master thesis projects both internally and externally.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the study directors confirmed the variation of the incidence of MSc thesis projects between the engineering and business faculty as well as the variation within the engineering faculty. The variation in incidence depends on the formal objectives of the MSc thesis (work life oriented or research oriented), the character of the research at the department (mostly applied or mostly basic research), and the facilitation or not for contacts with firms and organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur survey of MSc thesis projects at the engineering and business faculty at Lund University have empirically shown that: 1) MSc theses are a frequently used collaboration mechanism between university and industry in engineering education and very limited in business education, 2) collaborating firms and organizations in engineering benefit mainly by recruiting students and by the transfer of technological knowledge, 3) the limited number of collaborating firms and organizations in business benefit mainly by maintaining relations with the university, and 4) the main type of innovative knowledge transferred from the engineering faculty is related to the early innovation phases \u0026ndash; screening and scoping of new technologies/knowledge. Moreover, we have shown that: 5) the variation of collaborative master thesis projects depends on the formal objectives of the master thesis (work life or research oriented), 6) the character of the discipline at the department (applied or basic research), and 7) the presence of facilitation activities or not for contacts with firms and organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, our research confirms the relative high educational collaboration activity related to the engineering sciences, and the relatively limited activity in university-industry educational collaboration for social sciences, in this case the business faculty, observed earlier for university-industry R\u0026amp;D-collaboration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], increasing our understanding of the limited impact and knowledge transfer effects on regional development from social sciences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, the empirical results confirm prior findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] regarding the main benefits, i.e., recruitment of students and transfer of innovation knowledge of MSc thesis project or other student projects in engineering. Another finding, in relation to prior research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], are the results regarding innovative knowledge transfer related to innovation stages, where screening and scoping of new technologies, is the most common type of innovative knowledge transfer.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusions and implications for universities","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe economic and social impact from university-industry collaboration activities depend on its incidence. We have in this study showed that the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration activities in terms of collaborative MSc thesis projects is high for the engineering faculty but low for the business faculty. This result is in line with earlier research on university-industry R\u0026amp;D collaboration. The varying interest and incidence of educational collaborative projects between the engineering and business faculty is by the study directors related to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, on the one hand the teachers and students at the engineering faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a platform for collaboration with firms and organizations to facilitate students\u0026rsquo; transfer to work life, learning professional skills as well as transfer of innovative knowledge to industry. On the other hand, the teachers and students at the business faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a part of the students\u0026rsquo; education learning research skills with limited contact and interaction with industry, i.e., may be interpreted as holding an ivory tower attitude towards external contacts and impact on the society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor universities and faculties that wish to support educational collaboration, to facilitate student transfer from higher education studies to work-life as well as the transfer of innovation-related knowledge, university leadership may wish to facilitate collaborative MSc thesis activities and overall educational collaboration activities further. Obviously, if our findings in this study are valid for other universities, the business faculty and other less collaboration intensive faculties have more work to do than the engineering faculties.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study form the basis for the following four recommendations to universities and their leadership to increase the incidence of collaborative MSc theses with industry, both large firms and SMEs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1) If necessary, change the syllabus of the MSc thesis project to allow students to work on projects related to working life, professional development and management issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2) University leadership should facilitate the building and maintaining of long-term networks with firms and organizations making better connections and interactive relations in education, primarily with regional firms and organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3) University leadership should facilitate the active marketing of the opportunities of thesis collaboration projects to mainly regional firms, possibly sending them a voucher for an MSc thesis project to be \u0026ldquo;cashed in\u0026rdquo; at the career centre or some other relevant university unit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4) Measure the educational collaboration activities and include key metrics for different type of firms (large, SMEs) and organizations (public, NGOs) activities and follow-up progress over time.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Limitations and further research","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results are based on one year\u0026rsquo;s MSc theses in engineering and business at a major Swedish university, a questionnaire to collaborating firms and organizations and an interview study with departmental study directors. We believe our results are generalizable to the Swedish higher education system as it is rather uniform in the sense that it is state-regulated and for the most part state-organized and funded. The Nordic countries have similar traditions of MSc theses in collaboration with firms and organizations [e.g., 14, 15, 17]. The external validity of the results to business and engineering education in other countries is a question for further research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMSc theses are only one form of educational collaboration focusing on knowledge transfer and facilitation of transfer to work life. Other forms of educational collaboration, such as student written cases [16], student projects and jointly organized courses [15], internships [26], and open innovation centres [23] may also be important educational collaboration forms with industry. To increase our knowledge of university-industry educational collaboration future studies should include more forms of educational collaboration. This is particularly important for countries and universities that do not offer MSc theses in their curriculum.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have not investigated the causal mechanisms between collaborative MSc thesis projects and firm impact. Even though our firm survey gives some insights here, these are partial and do not provide a good understanding of how companies use and utilize MSc thesis projects in their innovation processes. This would require more fine-grained and longitudinal case studies, which we recommend for future studies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth authors, L.B and CJ.A. conceptualized the study and designed the method. Data collection was primarily done by CJ.A. Analysis and writing of first draft by L.B. Both authors have edited the paper and reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research has been funded by Vinnova grant number 2016-05266.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to participate declaration: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to publish declaration: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics declaration: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThune, T. (2011). Success Factors in Higher Education\u0026ndash;Industry Collaboration: A case study of collaboration in the engineering field. \u003cem\u003eTertiary Education and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.552627 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNsanzumuhire, S. U., \u0026amp; Groot, W. (2020). Context perspective on university-industry collaboration processes: A systematic review of literature. \u003cem\u003eJournal of cleaner production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e258\u003c/em\u003e, 120861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120861 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhuang, T \u0026amp; Shi, J (2024) Engagement, determinants and challenges: a multinational systematic review of education-focused university-industry collaborations, \u003cem\u003eEducational Review,\u003c/em\u003e 76:5, 1363-1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2149701 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKorhonen-Yrj\u0026auml;nheikki, K., Tukiainen, T., \u0026amp; Takala, M. (2007). New challenging approaches to engineering education: enhancing university\u0026ndash;industry co-operation. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790601118697 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, I. D., Belousova, V., \u0026amp; Chichkanov, N. (2018). Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: Ambiguities and Continuities. \u003cem\u003eForesight.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-10-2017-0058 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaeiro-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, M., Manso-V\u0026aacute;zquez, M., Mikic-Fonte, F. A., Llamas-Nistal, M., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Iglesias, M. J., Tsalapatas, H., ... \u0026amp; S\u0026oslash;rensen, L. T. (2021). Teaching soft skills in engineering education: An European perspective. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Access\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 29222-29242. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059516 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopli, N. K., \u0026amp; Singh, R. P. (2024). Enhancing academic outcomes through industry collaboration: our experience with integrating real-world projects into engineering courses. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00300-w \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBramwell, A., \u0026amp; Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1175-1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., \u0026amp; Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh\u0026ndash;Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostr\u0026ouml;m, A., D\u0026rsquo;este, P., ... \u0026amp; Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university\u0026ndash;industry relations. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede La Torre, E. M., P\u0026eacute;rez-Esparrells, C., \u0026amp; Casani, F. (2018). The policy approach for the third mission of universities: the Spanish case (1983\u0026ndash;2018). \u003cem\u003eRegional and Sectoral Economic Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13-30. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eaaeerese/v_3a18_3ay2018_3ai_3a1_5f2.htm \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFagrell, P., Fahlgren, A., \u0026amp; Gunnarsson, S. (2020). Curriculum development and quality work in higher education in Sweden: The external stakeholder perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Praxis in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), pp. 28\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc62 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParker, M. A., Walser, T. M., \u0026amp; Dighe, S. (2024). Academic program development: a collaborative and context-sensitive approach. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00377-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThune, T., \u0026amp; St\u0026oslash;ren, L. A. (2015). Study and labour market effects of graduate students\u0026rsquo; interaction with work organisations during education: A cohort study. \u003cem\u003eEducation+ Training\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(7), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2014-0126 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKunttu, L. (2017). Educational involvement in innovative university\u0026ndash;industry collaboration. \u003cem\u003eTechnology Innovation Management Review, 7\u003c/em\u003e(12), 14-22. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1124 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsplund, C. J. (2024). University-Industry Educational Collaboration: Knowledge spillovers and spillins through student-written cases and MSc theses. Doctoral dissertation. https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/d3e1db9b-d529-414b-9e79-9aac8075c566 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsplund, C. J., \u0026amp; Bengtsson, L. (2020). Knowledge spillover from master of science theses in engineering education in Sweden. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1604632 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSj\u0026ouml;\u0026ouml;, K., \u0026amp; Hellstr\u0026ouml;m, T. (2019). University\u0026ndash;industry collaboration: A literature review and synthesis. \u003cem\u003eIndustry and higher education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219829697 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueiredo, N.L., Ferreira, J.J.M. (2022). More than meets the partner: a systematic review and agenda for University\u0026ndash;Industry cooperation. \u003cem\u003eManag Rev Q\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e72\u003c/strong\u003e, 231\u0026ndash;273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00209-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaursen, K., \u0026amp; Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1201-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldstein, H. A. (2010). The \u0026lsquo;entrepreneurial turn\u0026rsquo; and regional economic development mission of universities. \u003cem\u003eThe Annals of Regional Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e, 83-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0241-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCompagnucci, L., \u0026amp; Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e161\u003c/em\u003e, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLucia, \u0026Oacute;., Burdio, J. M., Acero, J., Barrag\u0026aacute;n, L. A., \u0026amp; Garcia, J. R. (2012). Educational opportunities based on the university-industry synergies in an open innovation framework. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.644762 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., \u0026amp; Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 837-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9509-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate\u0026reg; idea‐to‐launch process\u0026mdash;update, what\u0026apos;s new, and nexgen systems. \u003cem\u003eJournal of product innovation management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCook, S. J., Parker, R. S., \u0026amp; Pettijohn, C. E. (2004). The perceptions of interns: A longitudinal case study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education for Business\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(3), 179-185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe economic and social impact from university-industry collaboration activities depend on its incidence. Based on a survey of MSc theses at two faculties, i.e., the engineering and business faculty, a survey to collaborating firms and an interview study of study directors we have showed that the incidence of university-industry educational collaboration activities in terms of collaborative MSc thesis projects is high for the engineering faculty (64%) but low for the business faculty (6%). The study shows that collaborating firms and public organizations benefit mostly from the educational collaborative projects in terms of recruiting students and knowledge transfer, mainly screening and scoping new technologies and ideas. The difference in incidence of university-industry educational collaborative activities between the two faculties is related to the formal aim of the MSc thesis, research oriented or work life oriented, the character of the departmental research, basic or applied research orientation, and the extent to which the department offers facilitation services for students to find a collaboration partner. We conclude that teachers and students at the engineering faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as a platform for collaboration with firms and organizations to facilitate students\u0026rsquo; transfer to work life, learning professional skills as well as transfer of innovative knowledge to industry. The teachers and students at the business faculty tend to see MSc thesis projects as part of the students\u0026rsquo; education of learning research skills with limited contact and interaction with industry, i.e., holding an ivory tower attitude towards external contacts and impact on the society.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Ivory Tower or Collaborative Innovation Platform? – Comparing MSc Theses in Engineering and Business Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-16 11:58:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7270442/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-09T08:19:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-09T07:01:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"214432045000941364795728363334511042523","date":"2025-10-08T06:26:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T10:07:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"155386002047804394936224806599217885546","date":"2025-10-03T09:55:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T09:43:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-05T10:53:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-05T10:53:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-08-01T10:43:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4e7ae97d-acae-41fb-93ce-d0ec8432704b","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-23T06:53:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-16 11:58:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7270442","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7270442","identity":"rs-7270442","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}