1 A Study of how the University of Nottingham Innovation Park had been Developed among the Wider Battleground of Institutional Power and Pressure within the Engaged
University
By Tom Weaver, 10863818, 2015 MSc Human Geography
Tutor: Wouter van Gent 22/06/2015
2 Abstract
An Innovation Park is becoming an increasingly prominent feature among university campuses in the UK. Its growth reflects a broader evolutionary trend within British higher education over the last 20 years, where universities have expanded into distinctly outward looking institutions. As such, many universities now experience a strong collaborative relationship with industry, both in their wider localities and on their campuses. In academia, traditional understandings of a university through the ivory tower paradigm have thus come crumbling down to be replaced with multi-scalar, multi-institutional frameworks such as the engaged university. However, accounts that discuss the recent growth of Innovation Parks on a university campus remain divided. While some bodies of literature argue that Innovation Parks are university-led developments designed to generate revenue, others state they are state-induced projects designed to enhance regional economic development. This study will attempt to join up the array of different institutions and motives at play in the development of an Innovation Park on a university campus. In a case study analysis, this thesis will determine how a host of institutions can shape the motives and ambitions of the University of
Nottingham to develop the University of Nottingham Innovation Park in a particular way. As such, this study is of vital geographic importance to understand the how the different
institutional relationships, power dynamics, and pressures between stakeholders within the engaged university framework are exerted on the University of Nottingham, and subsequently manifested through the development of its on-campus Innovation Park.
Key Words: Innovation Park, Engaged University, Development, Institutional Pressure,
University of Nottingham, Academic Capitalism
3 Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank the whole range of interviewees who generously gave up their time to provide me with a rich and plentiful database for this thesis. Without their valuable insights and perspectives, this thesis would have been impossible to undertake. For that, I am very grateful.
Secondly, I would like to extent my gratitude to my tutor for this study, Wouter van Gent. His guidance and support through this project was greatly valued and appreciated.
4 Contents Page Title Page 1 Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Contents 4 List of Appendices 7 List of Figures and Tables 8 1. Introduction 7
1.1 Research Question 12
1.2 Structure 13
1. The Institutional Manifestation of the Modern University: A Literature Review 14
2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 The Roll out of Neoliberalisation in Higher Education 15 1.2 2.2.1 A Global Spread of Academic Capitalism 15 1.2 2.2.2 Delimiting the Concept of Neoliberalism 16
2.2.3 Neoliberalisation in Higher Education 17
2.2.4 Resistance and the Role of Agency 19
2.3 Perspectives of Institutional Change and Institutional Pressure 20
2.3.1 Institutional Change 20
2.3.2 Institutional Isomorphism as a Neoliberal Institutional Pressure 21 2.4 Theoretical Understandings of the Modern University 24
2.5 The University as a Catalyst of Local and Regional Development 26 2.4 2.5.1 The Economic Promise of University-Industry Collaboration 26 2.4 2.5.2 The New Era of Multi-scale Governance in Higher Education 27 2.3 2.5.3 The Growth of Science and Innovation Parks 28 1.6 Conclusion 30
2. Methodology 32 10
5
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Research Questions 32
3.3 Semi-structured Interviews 34
3.4 Document Analysis of Secondary Data Sources 37
3.5 Conceptual Framework 38
3.6 Operationalization 39
3.7 Conceptual Scheme 40
3.8 Ethics 42
3.9 Conclusion 42
3. The Fruition of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park 44
4.1 Introduction 44
4.2 Universities and Development Catalysts 44
4.3 Local and Regional Governance Structures 49
4.4 The Development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park 51
4.5 Conclusion 56
4. The Concentrations of Power within the Stakeholders of the UNIP Development 57 5.1 Introduction 57
5.2 National and Regional Governance Structures 57
5.3 Internal University Institutions 61
5.4 External University Institutions 64
5.5 Conclusion 65
5. The Main Incentives that Drive and Shape the Development of UNIP 67
6.1 Introduction 67
6.2 Revenue Incentives 67
6.3 Access to Funding Sources 69
6.4 Economic and Societal Impact for Nottingham 72
6.5 Reputational Enhancement 73
6 6. The Manifestations of Institutional Pressure that Shape the Development of
UNIP 77 7.1 Introduction 77 7.2 Coercive Pressure 77 7.3 Mimetic Pressure 80 7.4 Normative Pressure 81 7.5 Conclusion 83 7. Conclusion 85 8.1 Research Question 85 8.2 Empirical Conclusions 85
8.2.1 The Most Powerful Stakeholders in the Development of UNIP 85
8.2.2 The Most Powerful Incentives to Shape UNIP 86
8.2.3 Forms of Institutional Pressure that Shape UNIP 87
8.2.4 Conclusion 88
8.3 Theoretical Conclusions 88
8.3.1 A Critique to the New Era of Local Governance 88
8.3.2 The Extent of Academic Capitalism at the University of Nottingham 89
8.4 Further Research 90
7 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Topic List for Interviews 107 Appendix B: Acronyms 108 Appendix C: Interviewee Information 110
8 List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1: The University of Nottingham Innovation Park 2010
Figure 2: The diffusion flow of isomorphic (ISO) forces on the South Korean PPS model of Higher Education
Figure 3: A Conceptual Scheme of institutional pressures that shape the development of UNIP
Figure 4: Total UK University income from business interaction in the 2005-06 academic year
Figure 5: The top 20 Aerospace Organisations in terms of Research Field Weight Citation Impact (FWCI) in the UK
Figure 6: Top 200 Universities by Country
Figure 7: University-Industry Collaboration in Research and Development in the EU, G8, and Other Selected Countries. (1= No Collaboration. 7= Expensive Collaboration)
Figure 8: The D2N2 catchment area
Figure 9: The Location of the Jubilee Campus in Nottingham, UK.
Figure 10: The Development of the University of Nottingham Jubilee Campus from 1978 (Right) to 2012 (Left)
Figure 11: A Map of the University of Nottingham Jubilee Campus
Figure 12: The Technology Entrepreneurship Centre Design Plan (Left) and the Centre for Sustainable Chemistry Design Plan (Right)
Figure 13: Income streams to the University of Nottingham between 2008 and 2012 Figure 14: Pressure flows in the development of UNIP
9 Tables
Table 1:Interview Information
Table 2: Operationalization of analytical concepts for data analysis
10 1. Introduction
A British university was once often referred to as institution that operated as an ‘ivory tower’; an ‘isolated entity, elitist and disconnected from the place in which it is situated and from practical matters of the real world’ (Benneworth, 2007, 487; Klein et al, 2011, 425). While the extent to which universities in the UK were ever such isolated entities is debated (see Bond and Paterson, 2005), it is beyond doubt that any manifestations of the ivory tower paradigm have come crumbling down in mainstream modern academic thought (Etzkowitz et al, 2000). Since the 1980’s, British universities have evolved from their traditional roles of teaching and research to engage in economic and societal activities with a variety institutions in their wider localities and regions (Middlehurst 2004). It was at this time that the
development potential of a university for its wider region was recognized in mainstream policy (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997). Today, universities in the UK have grown into what Youtie and Shapira (2008, 1188) call ‘knowledge hubs’, meaning they have taken responsibility to advance technological innovation and economic development for their wider regions in addition to their traditional teaching and research objectives. Within academia, the growing developmental role of a university and its increased collaboration with external organisations has subsequently received great attention (see D’Este and Patel, 2007; Hughes and Kitson, 2012; Ankrah et al, 2013).
The University of Nottingham provides an exemplary example of a modern university that has evolved to become heavily integrated in its surrounding area. The most striking
occurrence in this evolution began 1999, when the University created a new 65 acre campus in the Lenton area of the Nottingham (UoN, 2013b). Significantly, this campus did not just include new buildings to house academic departments and student accommodation, but provided a bounded area primarily dedicated to business engagement and research commercialisation (UoN, 2014b). This area was called the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP). UNIP is pictured in figure 1. The area seeks to significantly
contribute to and integrate within the wider economy and society of Nottingham. It attempts to do this through a provision of employment opportunities, business support, professional training, and the availability of world class research facilities for external actors and
organisations to access (UoN, 2010). Furthermore, the University of Nottingham was able to diversify its income stream and generate new forms of revenue from these activities. For
11 example, research commercialisation and intellectual property related income from UNIP provided a joint revenue of £17 million for the University of Nottingham in 2012 (D2N2, 2014c). Similarly, the site currently houses 38 small and medium sized companies, which collectively turned over £12 million for the University in 2013 (D2N2, 2014c, 63).
Figure 1: The University of Nottingham Innovation Park, 2010
Source: UoN (2010, 2)
The question to why the University of Nottingham has undertaken such an ambitious and pioneering project has no simple answer. In academic terms, the motives for universities to create and develop a geographic area of business collaboration and research
commercialisation are contested. Furthermore, academics are often split about what
institutions are ultimately responsible for the development of such sites. For example, some academics suggest that on-campus Innovation Parks result from top-down government policy that seeks to create high-value economic development for a particular locality (see Link and Scott, 2007; Chen and Kenney, 2007). Others state that they are university-led developments to extract revenue from research commercialisation (see Rasmussen et al, 2006; Engelen et al, 2008). As such, it appears that the University of Nottingham Innovation Park has been created and continues to be developed from an array of motives by a range of institutions. There has been few academics studies that have attempted to join up the different institutional motives of the stakeholders involved, either directly or indirectly, in the development of an
12 Innovation Park on a university campus. Subsequently, there is a gap in the literature that determines how an Innovation Park is shaped as a result of contrasting and competing institutional structures that have a role in its development. Furthermore, no literature has sought to understand how the ideologies and ambitions of the modern university, amongst a wider battleground of institutional power and pressures from a variety of stakeholders, has been geographically manifested in place. It is this gap that this thesis will seek to address with a case study of the development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP).
It is important for this study to be undertaken for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is important to fully understand what stakeholders are the most responsible for the growth of Innovation Parks, and therefore the most responsible for the continued evolution away from the
traditional ivory tower university model. This can determine the scale that governance structures and other institutions are at their most effective in shaping university development agendas and how their power is manifested to produce institutional pressures. The role of the state will receive particular attention to assess its continued role and relevance to impact a university in the context of a shift in power towards local governance institutions (Charles et al, 2014). Secondly, it is important to understand the main incentives that shape Innovation Parks. This can subsequently explain how and why Innovation Parks are characterised in a particular way at a particular location. This analysis is crucial to understand the geography of this case. In this respect, the extent to which an on-campus Innovation Park is manifested to represent the ideologies of the modern University will be analysed. As such, this thesis will contribute to the theoretical body of the engaged university, and how the power dynamics involved in this contextually sensitive, multi-institutional theory are manifested in place. Thirdly, it is important to undertake this study because it can provide an intriguing insight into the future formation of university campuses in the UK, where increasingly land is being used for business collaboration and research commercialisation, rather than teaching.
1.1 Research Question
To effectively answer the points raised in the above, the research question for this thesis is as follows:
13
In the new era of multi-scale governance in the UK, how has the development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP) by the University of Nottingham been shaped by different internal and external institutions?
1.2 Structure
The current body of academic literature will be firstly be analysed to provide a thorough critical account of present studies in the field of this thesis. The literature review will also critically analyse institutional theory as an analytical framework for this thesis. Secondly, the methodological approach to this thesis, through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, will be explained and justified. Furthermore, the Methodology will justify the application of an institutional approach within an engaged university perspective as an analytical framework for this thesis. Thirdly, a contextual explanation of higher education policy in the UK will then be documented to provide a comprehensive background for the data analysis chapters. Furthermore, a detailed description of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park will be provided. This will include its history, present state, and future plans. The first data analysis chapter will determine who the most important stakeholders in the development of UNIP are. The second data analysis chapter will determine what the most important incentives in the development of UNIP are. The third data analysis chapter will determine how institutional pressure is exerted by the different stakeholders to and within the University of Nottingham in the development of UNIP. It will also comment on the
manifestation and strength of this institutional pressure. This thesis will finish with a
conclusion that will directly answer the research questions and sub-questions, drawing from the data analysis sections. These findings will be made in reference to academic literature set out in the literature review.
14 2. The Institutional Manifestation of the Modern University; A Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will provide a coherent analysis of current academic literature that is based around the topic of institutional change in higher education, and the modern role of a university. Firstly, it will discuss the spread of neoliberalism in higher education. This body of literature was chosen as it can provide a theoretical insight to the current ideological setting of higher education in the UK. It will aid an understanding to recognition of the most powerful actors that play a role in the diffusion of neoliberalism within higher education. Literature in this field is important to be aware of for this thesis, particularly to gain an insight into the motives that can influence the goals and agendas of different organisations in the development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP). Furthermore, this section will provide an academic background to the potential of resistance to neoliberalism within higher education.
Secondly, this chapter will discuss theoretical perspectives on institutional change and institutional pressure. This literature will provide an insight into how an institution can change as a result of institutional pressures that are applied to it. As such, this literature is essential to explore to determine how the University of Nottingham can be pressured by different stakeholders to develop UNIP in a particular way.
The third section of this literature review will discuss the new theoretical understandings of the modern university, such as the entrepreneurial university and engaged university that have risen to prominence. This will provide the theoretical context for this study to add to. This study will do this by analysing how the power dynamics and different agendas of the stakeholders within the engaged university framework can be physically manifested in place. The fourth section of this chapter will directly complement the third. It will analyse the
modern understandings that view a university as a catalyst for local and regional development. This section will explore the extent to which a university can promote local and regional economic development through collaboration with industry. It will then provide an academic insight towards the new era of multi-scale governance in the UK. Finally, this section will critically analyse discussions surrounding the subsequent growth of Science and Innovation Parks as a result of university-industry collaboration in the new era of multi-scale governance.
15 I will conclude this chapter by identifying clear gaps in the literature review, from which my research question and set of sub questions will address in the subsequent chapters of this thesis.
2.2 The Roll out of Neoliberalisation in Higher Education 2.2.1 A Global Spread of Academic Capitalism
The concept of ‘academic capitalism’ was first coined by Slaughter and Leslie (1997, 8) in an attempt to understand an increase in market and market-like activities and institutions within higher education. Examples of market and market-like activities include patenting and spin-off company development, as well as the establishment of tuition fees and university-industry partnerships (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Slaughter and Rhodes (2004, 11) believe that academic capitalism is an institutionally pervasive phenomenon that serves to ‘blur the boundaries among markets, the state, and higher education’. In this regard, they view academic capitalism as an integrated concept that encompasses a wide range of institutions, not just a university. Kauppinen (2012) stresses that the term can be used as a multi-sided framework to describe and explain performance-driven changes to a University, including the introduction of accountability metrics, a new emphasis on assessment and rankings, and the changing relationship between a university and its wider surroundings.
Slaughter and Leslie (1997) undertake a global perspective to view institutional trends that occur from the spread of academic capitalism. They do this through an analysis of higher education in the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. Their analysis demonstrates that there is a considerable institutional convergence across higher education in three of these four
countries. They found that only Canada was different due to the de-centralised nature of their higher education policy. However, Deem (2001) doubts their conclusion over concerns in their empirical method. For example, while the authors found that there was a notable increase in the homogenization of business practices for academic staff across the countries, they only interviewed academic staff in Australia. There is an absence of empirical
comparison with the other three countries. The infiltration of business practices among academic staff is assumed by Slaughter and Leslie (1997) to exist in the US, the UK, and Canada through the analysis of policy documentation (Deem, 2001). This puts some doubt to
16 the nature and extent of contextual sensitivity that Slaughter and Leslie (1997) incorporate in their book.
King Choi (2010) provides an alternative global account of academic capitalism. In his Hong Kong-based analysis, he demonstrates that English has become the dominant language of higher education. He argues that it is no coincidence that English also happens to be the language that facilitates international business and trade. King Choi (2010) states that the rise in the English language has mirrored a borrowing of Euro-American market practices in Hong Kong higher education, as well as the adoption of metrics to assert accountability in their universities. As such, King Choi (2010) not only suggests that there is an increase in institutional homogenization within non-western countries that is driven by academic
capitalism, but he also describes this process as a new manifestation of neo-colonialism. This conclusion has been similarly reached in a study of higher education in Taiwan by Chou (2014). However, Turner Johnson and Hirt (2011) dispute this conclusion. They state that the majority of studies on academic capitalism draw similarities between western and non-western higher education institutions too easily. In a study on the Kenyan higher education system, they undertake a contextually sensitive view to assert that academic capitalism should be ‘reshaped and decontextualized to the dramatically different settings in which it is enacted’. Turner Johnson and Hirt (2011) move away from King Choi’s (2010) business centric view, and note that local cultures, histories and institutions have the power to mould academic capitalist forces. They note that universities do not act passively to wider neoliberal flows, as suggested by King Choi (2010), Chou (2014), and Slaughter and Leslie (1997). As such, a contextually sensitive analysis is an effective framework to understand the
institutional intricacies and contestations of academic capitalism (Turner Johnson and Hirt, 2011).
2.2.2 Delimiting the Concept of Neoliberalism
Academic capitalism is tied to and encouraged by wider forces of neoliberalism (Slaughter and Leslie (1997). However, due to the contextual fluidity and subjective nature of the term, Saad-Filho and Johnson (2005) suggest that neoliberalism defies any form of concrete definition, while Hardin (2014) further argues that the term has ceased in relevance. In an historical perspective, Venugol (2015) argues that the origins of the term neoliberalism is situated in economics, born from the free-market ideology of both British Thatcherite
17 economic policy and that of the Reagan administration in the US. Free-market ideology is characterised by economic de-regulation, privatization, and the encouragement of economic individualism (Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, 2012).
Instead of discarding neoliberalism as an undefinable or irrelevant concept, Flew (2014) is able to stress that neoliberalism is most coherently demonstrated through the use of an
institutional analysis. He comes to this conclusion as he undertakes a Foucaultian perspective that emphasises power and governance structures to understand neoliberalism. Flew (2014) rejects individuality in his search for a coherent institutional neoliberal analysis. Instead, it should focus on processes of ‘capitalist economic development that are shaped and mediated by institutional structures in and through which these processes take place’ (Flew, 2014, 64). Brenner et al (2010) understand neoliberalism as an institutionally embedded process in a similar way to Flew (2014), although their analysis of neoliberalism empowers the state to a greater extent. For Brenner et al (2010), neoliberal processes primarily derive from
governmental laws and legislation, which set to re-shape the institutional landscape to enable and encourage market practices such as the commodification of goods and services.
Canaan (2013, 22) is critical of the term ‘neoliberalism’. His historical perspective enables him to argue that the term ‘neoliberalisation’ must instead be used as it is a contingent expression to describe an evolving process. As such, Canaan (2013, 20) argues that ‘neoliberalism’ is a ‘rascal concept that is promiscuously pervasive, yet inconsistently defined, empirically imprecise and frequently contested’, while ‘neoliberalisation’ is a ‘radical contingent process that could open up to something else’. Canaan (2013, 23) states that neoliberalisation does not only permeate through institutional structures, but can impact on ‘peoples desires, aspirations, and hopes’ in the social context of an individual. He thus stresses the significant impact that neoliberal practices can have to influence individual decision-making in a way Flew (2014) does not.
2.2.3 Neoliberalisation in Higher Education
Olssen and Peters (2001) believe that neoliberalisation has changed the way in which a university views its existence as a higher education institution. They state that the speed at which neoliberal practices and cultures are permeating through higher education has led to an increase in market engagement by universities, such as interaction with private businesses.
18 Institutional confusion is subsequently caused as a result of rapid institutional change, where the traditional professional culture of open intellectual enquiry and debate ‘has been replaced with an institutional stress on performativity… strategic planning, performance indicators, quality assurance measures and academic audits’ (Olssen and Peters, 2001, 1). More broadly, Peck and Tickell (2002, 484) attribute the institutional confusion of a university to the ‘roll out’ of neoliberalisation. This process seeks to ‘remodel the public sector according to private-sector management principles and the disciplines of the free market’ (French, 2001, 2). Peck and Tickell (2002, 484) argue that this ‘roll out’ is consolidated and encouraged within modes of government and other economic regulatory institutions to preserve the free market economy.
Shore (2010, 20) discusses the emergence of a ‘schizophrenic university’ in a study on the University of Auckland in New Zealand to explain the evolution of a university under neoliberalisation. He uses schizophrenia to describe a university in a metaphorical sense, where a university is asked to carry out contradictory aims and objectives. Similarly to Peck and Tickell (2002), he undertakes an institutional analysis that gives great power to the state. As such, these authors view a university as a somewhat passive institutional network to neoliberal forces. Nevertheless, Shore (2010) explains three government-led themes to demonstrate the schizophrenic university.
Firstly, Shore (2010, 22) states that an increased government intervention, and control over, university research has put explicit pressure on research staff to contribute develop research agendas that are directly ‘relevant’ to society, rather than traditional ‘blue sky research’. Here, Shore (2010, 22) states that a new funding environment has been set up where a university must ‘demonstrate that education and research is contributing to positive economic, social, cultural, and environmental outcomes’ in New Zealand. Secondly, Shore (2010) argues that the commercialisation of research has sought to turn intellectual property into a marketable commodity. For example, he notes that research staff have expressed the unclear nature of their role at the University of Auckland through mockingly nicknaming the ‘research office’ the ‘revenue office’ (Shore, 2010, 23). Finally, Shore (2010) states that the introduction of a Performance Based Pay Fund (PBPF) has been the most significant institutional shift that has contributed to the schizophrenic university. The PBPF is a review system that is designed to assess the performance of researchers. However, this contradicts the commercialisation of research agenda, as often theoretically rigorous research is more highly rewarded over applied research that is short of theory. As such, different contradictory systems for funding
19 and performance has led to academics being torn between different research criteria (Shore, 2010, 20).
A limitation in the work of Shore (2010) is his inability to recognize the agency of staff within and across academic and management domains. He views staff themselves as passive recipients of wider institutional forces that are engineered to turn specialised knowledge into profit. Whitchurch (2008, 387) addresses this gap through an analysis of ‘third space’
creation. She explains third space as ‘an emergent territory between academic and
professional domains, which is colonised primarily by less bounded forms of professional.’ She labels the professionals that colonise this space as ‘third space professionals’, who often serve as orchestrators in pushing profit-orientated reform within a university (Whitchurch, 2008, 377). As such, Whitchurch (2008) notes that tensions are reasonably likely to arise between third space professionals and academics as they work towards different, often conflicting, agendas. Furthermore, Engelen et al (2014) state that these tensions are exacerbated as third space professionals often receive more support and funding from university management staff, and often have little experience of academic research itself.
2.2.4 Resistance and the Role of Agency
Amsler (2011) undertakes a different perspective to understand the roll out of neoliberalism in a university to Shore’s (2010) linear top-down framework. Amsler (2011) does this through an analysis of the role of staff and student agency within a university. This perspective enables Amsler (2011) to determine that staff and students have the power to resist neoliberalisation as a driver of institutional change. It is argued by Amsler (2011) that large sections of staff and students at a university idealise the university as a democratic public institution. She states that this vision consists of an elected board characterised by a strong scholar and student voice which prioritises educational matters over economic goals. Anderson (2008) explains that the labour process perspective is the most applicable
perspective to understand the resistance of academic staff and students to neoliberalisation processes within a university. This perspective is explained by Anderson (2008) as a
framework that shifts emphasis away from collective forms of resistance, such as strikes, to everyday forms of resistance. The labour process perspective is influenced by a
20 of a ‘routinized, informal, and often inconspicuous forms of resistance in everyday practice (Anderson, 2008, 254). Such resistance, Anderson (2008) argues, is often underpinned by the reluctance of researchers to evolve away from traditional elements of academic culture to ameliorate the impact of the aims and goals of managers in third stream professional positions. However, Amsler (2011) suggests that the potential for collective action to overhaul the neoliberalisation of a university is being eroded. She demonstrates that this is due to a lack of a platform for democratic engagement, particularly as a university is such a large, complex, and diverse institution.
2.3 Perspectives of Institutional Change and Institutional Pressure 2.3.1 Institutional Change
Van Gent (2013, 503) defines an institutional perspective as a framework that is related to ‘changes in political structures leading to new urban geographies’. In a similar context, Streek and Thelen (2005) state that institutions are viewed as enforceable social rules that consist of a broad set of structures including policies, hierarchies and organisations, formal agreements and legislature.
An effective institutional framework that tries to understand the evolution of institutions is put forward by Thelen (2003). Her framework consists of two key modes to view institutional change. She calls the first mode institutional layering. This, she argues, consists of active support for modifications and additions to existing institutions. Differential growth is the driver of this form of institutional change. Here, the older system gradually reduces to make way for a faster system of growth that is newly attached to the institution (Thelen, 2003). Secondly, Thelen (2003) explains institutional conversion. This form of institutional change occurs where institutions that are ‘designed with one set of goals in mind are re-directed to other ends’ (Thelen, 2003, 228). Thelen (2003) implies that this change often occurs to fit actor interests.
Sorensen (2011) is critical of Thelen’s (2003) interpretation of institutional change. He states that it remains concentrated in the narrow focus of formal legal-political institutions such as regulations and laws that are collectively enforceable by society. As such, Sorensen (2011, 716) suggests that it neglects wider cultural institutions such as ‘rules of politeness and reciprocity’. Nevertheless, Thelen’s (2003) framework still has value to understand the
21 evolution of institutions over time, particularly in understanding power relations within formal institutions. Her framework is effective to view institutional change as a gradual and incremental transformative vehicle which may be just as sensitive to endogenous factors as exogenous ones.
2.3.2 Institutional Isomorphism as a Neoliberal Institutional Pressure
Di Maggio and Powell (1983) explore the concept of institutional isomorphism to understand patterns of institutional pressure cause institutional change. Institutional isomorphism is therefore a complementary concept to Thelen’s (2003) frameworks of institutional conversion and institutional layering, as it seeks to understand how institutional pressures force
institutional change (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983). As such, Di Maggio and Powell (1983) state that institutional isomorphism is a form of institutional pressure to encourage an
institution to take on the same structures or operations as another that are considered rational or legitimate. For Di Maggio and Powell (1983), institutional isomorphism can exist through three forms of institutional pressure; coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Di Maggio and Powell (1983, 150) define coercive isomorphic pressures as forces that consists of ‘both formal and informal pressures exerted on organisations by other
organisations upon which they are dependent’ (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983, 150). Jarvis (2014) explains that these pressures may be experienced as force, persuasion, or invitations to join in collusion. Here, coercive isomorphic pressures are induced by power (Beckert, 2010). Simons and Ingram (1997, 784) argue that neoliberalism is a form of coercive isomorphic pressure, as market-driven practices such as de-regulation and privatization reflect a ‘set of beliefs about how the world operates, including ideas about what outcomes are desirable and how they can best be achieved.’ Ross and Gibson (2007) support this point, and state that neoliberal values have been imposed on powerful international institutions such as the IMF, which increases the world-wide spread of neoliberalisation. This in turn strengthens the neoliberalisation as a coercive isomorphic pressure in Higher Education Institutions across the world (Hursh, 2007).
‘Mimetic isomorphism’, as defined by the terms creator, is a pressure exerted on an
22 67). This form of pressure often arises when organisational goals and directions are not clear. In response, they mimic other organisations innovations or strategies (Burdos, 2001).
Di Maggio and Powell (1983 152), define ‘normative isomorphism’ as a form of pressure on an institution which seeks to standardise its professional workforce and encourage a certain type of practice. The concept therefore takes on a social dependency in a way in which coercive and mimetic isomorphism may not (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983). Burdos (2001) states that professionalization is the most common form of normative isomorphic change in the context of higher education. This is because, as Burdos (2001, 223) quotes,
professionalization is a facilitator of ‘the creation of normative rules concerning
organisational practices, which leave individuals to favour sanctioned practices.’ A cognitive acceptance of particular rules and behaviours that are imagined to be suitable for the
workplace thus grow in an individual’s mind and become accepted as the standardised behavioural norm (Burdos, 2001).
Carpenter and Feroz (2001) are wary of the use of these three concepts of institutional
pressure. They argue that it is not always possible to distinguish between the three forms, and often two or more of these concepts may be operating simultaneously, making it impossible to determine which is most potent. Albu et al (2014) are similarly critical of these three strands of institutional isomorphic theory. They state that while they offer some compelling hypotheses about organisational change, they are extremely difficult to identify and
rigorously quantify. As such, Albu et al (2014) state that institutional isomorphism is often left to be tested through case study analysis using subjective indirect measures.
In a study of institutional change in higher education in South Korea, Hyeo Joo and Halx (2012) attempt to overcome these conceptual issues by embedding institutional isomorphism in politics and culture. They recognise that each sovereign state has the power to determine, revise, and implement its own educational policies. However, they understand this without neglecting the broader patterns of institutional homogenization that are associated the global diffusion of neoliberal practices. Hyeo Joo and Halx (2012) state that a performance-based pay system (PPS) has spread to many higher education institutions in South Korea. They state that PPS is a highly effective market model that is reliant upon international economic trends and universal market values. PPS is a results-orientated funding agenda that emphasises efficiency, competitiveness, and competition in the public and private sectors (Ballou, 2001). Hyeo Joo and Halx (2012) utilise their global perspective to recognize that institutional
23 change in Higher Education has been encouraged by the South Korean government in a bid to copy and compete with the US higher education PPS model. Through a financially-driven article, Jarvis (2014) can contribute to this study to demonstrate that global institutional homogenization is motivated and reinforced by the global spread of financially profitable neoliberal practices. Figure 2 shows how coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional pressure can act as vehicles to diffuse the PPS model into South Korean higher education institutions.
Figure 2: The diffusion flow of isomorphic (ISO) forces on the South Korean PPS model of Higher Education
Source: Hyeo Joo and Halx (2012, 293)
With a politically sensitive focus on institutional isomorphism, Drezner (2001) can contribute to Jarvis’s (2014) financially-based analysis. He attributes the increase in global institutional homogeny to ‘policy convergence’ (Drezner, 2001, 53). This is where, as Drezner (2001, 53) states, there is a ‘tendency of policies to grow more alike, in the form of increasing similarity in structures, processes, and performances’ through globally spanning standards, behavioural norms, and market principles. However, Meyer and Rowan (2006) state that institutional isomorphism as a framework that neglects internal driving forces that can create institutional heterogeneity within a particular geographic context. For example, Meyer and Rowan (2006)
24 assert that geographically specific cultural and historical traditions are still relevant in
shaping institutional structures, as is the power of individual relationships. Similar concerns are shared by Vaira (2004), who states that institutional isomorphism as a framework is overly deterministic, static, and unable to account for differences between structures and change in structures. Nevertheless, institutional isomorphism can serve as an effective
framework to understand global patterns and manifestations of institutional pressure that lead to large scale institutional change (Frumkin and Galaskiewicz, 2004).
2.4 Theoretical Understandings of the Modern University
Searle Renault (2006) argues that the rise of academic capitalism in higher education has forced new understandings of the modern university. In a similar way to Leslie and Slaughter (1997), her analysis argues that institutional change, particularly deriving from profit-seeking motives, has led a university to develop market-based characteristics. As such, an array of new theories have risen to prominence which attempt to understand the modern university, such as the regional innovation systems theory (see Asheim et al, 2011, Goddard et al, 2012) and the mode 2 university framework (see Harloe and Perry, 2004). However, the following will discuss the two most common frameworks to understand a university in the academic capitalist modern era; the entrepreneurial university and the engaged university (Uyarra, 2010).
Trippl et al (2012) suggest that the ‘entrepreneurial university’ framework is the most prominent account of the changing roles and functions of universities. Literature on the entrepreneurial university (see Etzkowitz, et al 2000; Clark, 2001, Siegel et al, 2007) tends to adopt an institutional perspective. The concept explains how a university has introduced new management and organisational arrangements to exploit intellectual property and
commercialise research as a university experiences a shift towards economic autonomy (Trippl et al, 2012). Zhao (2004, 225) defines the commercialisation of research as ‘a process of developing new ideas and/or research output into commercial products or services and then putting them onto the market’. The entrepreneurial university framework can serve to highlight tensions that surround these new profit-driven institutional forms against traditional academic practices (Uyarra, 2010). Geiger and Sa (2008, 32) claim that prior to this model ‘commercially valuable discoveries were generally viewed as a by-product of academic research, not as an objective.’ Uyarra (2010) argues that the entrepreneurial university
25 framework is effective as it highlights the importance of organisational and strategic aspects that are associated with university-industry relationships. However, Mowery and Sampat (2005) are critical of the entrepreneurial university framework. They argue that its
overwhelming emphasis on commercialisation can lead to a narrow analysis of a university. In this context, the framework can neglect wider policy and institutional effects that have the power to influence university-industry linkages (Mowery and Sampat, 2005).
To overcome the shortcomings of the entrepreneurial university, the framework of the ‘engaged university’ has recently risen to prominence as a broader perspective to view the modern university (see Bridger and Alter, 2006, 170, Chatterton and Goddard, 2000). Charles et al (2014) state that this framework refers to a range of activities beyond revenue creation that a university now commits to including civic engagement, public engagement, and community engagement (see Goddard and Vallance, 2011; Watson et al, 2013; Benneworth, 2013). It also recognises the significance of wider stakeholders to influence university activities (Charles et al, 2014). However, Trippl et al (2012) offers criticism of the engaged university model. He argues that it lacks empirical foundation. As a result, they state that relationships between the university and a wide array of other institutional actors in political, social, and economic fields are poorly understood.
Nevertheless, the engaged university remains an effective framework to understand the modern university. This is because it can appreciate the multi-scalar power dynamics that surround and pressure a university, and can also demonstrate the strong outward-looking regional focus that is evidently embedded within the modern university (Breznitz and Feldman, 2012). Benneworth and Hospers (2007) argue that the engaged university framework shifts the emphasis of understanding the modern university from a driver of knowledge transfer processes, as it is viewed in the entrepreneurial framework, to a facilitator of regional needs. In contrast to the entrepreneurial university framework, Charles et al (2014, 329) state that engaged university can demonstrate that universities have taken responsibility to become ‘stewards of place’. As such, universities have become significant institutions in local governance (Charles et al, 2014).
26 2.5 The University as a Catalyst of Local and Regional Development
2.5.1 The Economic Promise of University-Industry Collaboration
Charles (2006) argues that universities across the UK are increasingly committing to an outward looking collaborative relationship with industry. The framework of the engaged university is crucial in this respect to enable a thorough analysis of the modern university (Etzkowitz, 2012, Harloe and Perry, 2004). To gain a fully coherent understanding of why the university has expanded to an outward looking institution, it is important to understand the economic impacts of university-industry relations to a region or locality. This is because the benefits of this activity inspire further policy application to encourage universities to become significant local and regional development actors (Hudson, 2009).
Benneworth and Charles (2005) analyse the role that universities have to develop spin-off companies in a bid to facilitate and grow their local economies. A university spin-off company is a ‘high technology venture that originates from research work in a university, resulting in the generation of intellectual property, and usually the subsequent involvement of key researchers’ (De Costa and Butler, 2005, 535). In a contextually sensitive article,
Benneworth and Charles (2005) understand that there is a clear geographical dimension to the economy, where universities in less prosperous regions face higher barriers to successfully encourage and facilitate spin-off companies. For example, they state that a less successful region may have a smaller number of highly skilled workers, which in turn reduces the number of high-value spin-off companies that can create high-value growth. As such, Benneworth et al (2010) state that the British government has placed emphasis on a university to act as a catalyst to develop a high-value economy, particularly in lagging economic regions, through graduate training, facilitating spin-off companies, and offering their research expertise in business collaboration. Furthermore, universities in turn can create profit from this type of activity in what appears to be a win-win situation for them and the government (Comunian et al, 2013; Lloyd and Payne, 2002). In this respect, Benneworth and Charles (2005, 2) state that a university has become a ‘golden goose’ for governments who seek relatively inexpensive valorisation policies that can produce significant economic benefits to a locality. It is clear to see that Benneworth and Charles (2005) place a great emphasis on the role of the state in a university’s facilitation of spin-off company growth. Ranga and Etzkowitz (2013) similarly use a contextually sensitive institutional framework to argue that universities have become major assets to their wider economies. The authors argue
27 that universities have expanded their roles beyond the capacity to educate individuals and students to educate organisations. They state that universities do this through
entrepreneurship and training programs in new inter-disciplinary centres such as Innovation Parks, Science Parks, and academic spin-off companies. For Ranga and Etzkowitz (2013), university-led economic growth is an endogenous development strategy at the local level. This is because it is reliant on the creation of an underlying science and arts base as a catalyst to encourage the formation of creative industries and high-value knowledge-based firms.
2.5.2 The New Era of Multi-Scale Governance in Higher Education
Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) are very critical of the state-centric approach in which a university can contribute to the economic development of its wider locality as utilised by Benneworth and Charles (2005). Bramwell and Wolfe (2008, 1175) argue that state-centric approaches are often limited by a linear perspective to view a university as a ‘knowledge factory’. While they suggest that the flow of knowledge from a university does act as a catalyst for innovation, they stress that it is important to note that forms of knowledge transfer are a ‘fluid, complex, and iterative process involving many different actors’
(Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008, 1175). McAdam et al (2012) share a similar view to Bramwell and Wolfe (2008). However, they understand these institutional dynamics through
stakeholder theory. McAdam et al (2012) argue that this theory gives greater power to
institutions outside the university such as business and local authorities, that are often implied as somewhat passive in the entrepreneurial university framework (McAdam et al, 2012). McAdam et al (2012, 59) define the stakeholder approach as a flexible framework that ‘assumes that organisations may have to adopt a different position to that of their preferred option when involved in a two way relationship, whereby interests and concerns of both parties are taken into consideration and subsequent decisions are take in light of those, often conflicting, interests and concerns’.
In the UK context, the stakeholder approach has taken on great significance within the broader framework of the engaged university due to a decentralisation of power from the British government towards local institutions (Jongbloed et al, 2008). Charles et al (2014) argue that the governance of higher education has been rescaled to the local level in the UK because of the 2008 global financial crisis and introduction of a Conservative-led coalition government in 2010. As such, Charles et al (2014, 343) state that the regional model of
28 governance that was introduced by the previous labour government in 1997 is slowly being overtaken by a new ‘localism’, which is characterised by ‘institutional partnerships and governance models embedded in city-regions’. Charles et al (2014, 328) point towards a development of ‘city-regions’ as a new form of space and scale for universities to act as contributors to local high-value economic development. Bentley and Pugalis (2012) support this view, and suggest that this shift has been accelerated by the replacement of government-led Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) with business-local authority collaborations called Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). They state that LEPs are now the prime
governance entities available for sub-national development in the UK. However, Charles et al (2014) assert that localism has created new scalar and communication issues between
universities, local and national authorities, and industry. For example, a vacuum has been left since the abolishment of RDAs in the distribution and management of funding streams from the European, national, and regional level to a university (Charles et al, 2014). Furthermore, these tensions have been exacerbated as a decrease in national funding to higher education has forced universities to co-operate more with alternative institutions at a variety of levels with a variety of agendas to access funding sources (Charles et al, 2014).
2.5.3 The Growth of Science and Innovation Parks
The decentralisation agenda to regionalism, and furthermore to localism, since 1997 has encouraged British universities to collaborate with businesses to fund and develop geographic sites to incubate activity between universities and industry (Hudson, 2009). As such, new spaces of high-value university-industry collaboration have grown in and around university campuses. These spaces have adopted a variety of names depending on their specialisations, such as Science Parks, Technology Parks, and Innovation Parks (see Phan et al, 2005; Phillimore, 1999; Palmai, 2004). Montesinos et al (2008, 267) define these spaces as a network of organisations ‘managed by specialist professionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated business and knowledge-based institutions’. They argue that these spaces not only provide physical space for university-business collaboration, but they provide a
university-led ‘logical and legal framework that facilitates the creation of innovation-based companies, through incubation, spin-off, and start-up processes coming from products, patent exploitations, and technological services’ (Montesinos et al, 2008, 267). Furthermore,
29 Huggins et al (2008) suggest that the benefits of Science, Innovation, and Technology Parks spread beyond the cluster into their wider economies. This is because they promote
innovation, development, and the competitiveness of cities by the intensive use of a
university’s potential beyond their boundaries (Huggins et al, 2008). Through undertaking a stakeholder perspective, McAdam et al (2005) are able to point out that the physical space and high-quality infrastructure of these Parks is not enough to successfully provide a high level of business support. They argue that the value-add mainly lies with the people and institutions that fill an Innovation Park. As such, McAdam et al (2005) suggest that a successful Innovation Park must be referred to as a business and management facilitation method by a university as well as a physical space.
However, Goddard et al (2012) suggest that the success of Technology and Innovation Parks differ in accordance to geographical region. This contextually sensitive understanding is lacking in Montesinos et al’s (2008) article, which considers that the success of Science and Technology Parks is largely due to the commitment of a university to spread its resources into the site. They pay little attention to the ability of the wider regional environment to determine the success of a Science Park. Goddard et al (2012, 612) argue that ‘less successful regions will often not have the existing industrial capacity required to assimilate and
capitalise on new knowledge or applications stemming from research in proximate university.’ Furthermore, Goddard et al (2012, 612) suggest that Innovation Parks in this system often exist among a relatively weak entrepreneurial environment that affects the success of the Park itself. From a policy perspective, they state that there is an ‘apparent contradiction between the comparatively greater need to spend on innovation in lagging regions and their relatively lower capacity to absorb public funds ear marked for the promotion of innovation and to invest in innovation related activities compared to more advanced regions.’ Goddard et al (2012, 612) call this contradiction a ‘regional innovation paradox.’
Lawton Smith (2007) is critical of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Park model of university-led development. She argues that there is little empirical evidence to suggest that the incubation environment of a Science Park actually exerts a significant impact on the economic performance of small and medium sized companies. Furthermore, she suggests that intermediary institutions within Science Parks can in fact act as a barrier to the growth of large firms who are globally orientated. Kirkby (2006) provides an example of this institutional barrier in the hierarchical structure of a university, where he states that many levels of approval are often needed from university management authorities to confirm
30 funding to projects that allow academic staff to engage with business and share intellectual property.
However, similarly to Montesinos et al (2012), Lawton Smith (2007) does little to take into account the impact of the wider environment outside a Science Park. This shortcoming is addressed by Hansson et al (2005). The authors similarly doubt the ability for a Science Park to seriously enhance economic growth for a company, but they argue this is only the case for Science Parks that are located away from a university in what they call a ‘greenhouse model’ (Hansson et al, 2005, 1047). In a way in which Lawton Smith (2007) fails to explore,
Hansson et al (2005, 1047) distinguish the ‘greenhouse model’ to a ‘campus model’ Science Park, which latterly represents Science Parks situated on a university campus. In the campus model, they view universities as Science Parks themselves. They conclude that the campus model is a far more promising to increase the value-add that a Science Park can provide for a company. This is because a company located on a campus model Science Park often
experiences a far stronger relationship with academic and professional staff, and can access expertise that a university can offer more readily as a result (Hansson et al, 2005).
2.6 Conclusion
Through an analysis of a large section of literature, it is clear that neoliberalism, and more specifically academic capitalism, is a key catalyst that surrounds institutional change in higher education, even it does encounter forms of resistance. It has also become clear that institutional change can happen in different ways, whether it be through institutional conversion or institutional layering. Similarly, it can be induced by different institutional pressures such as coercive, mimetic, or normative isomorphic pressures. The spread of academic capitalism has had a profound impact on higher education on a global scale, where universities have changed to become more likely to employ third stream professionals alongside academic staff, and commit to forms of local and economic development in collaboration with industry and government authorities. As such, new geographic sites that facilitate innovation, research commercialisation, and high-value business growth have emerged around universities such as Science and Innovation Parks. The institutional
framework of the engaged university has shown that the UK higher education is now in a new era of multi-scale governance. As such, there is now a variety of institutions that are
31 empowered to collaborate with universities in local and regional development initiatives, such as the private sector and local authorities.
This literature fails to directly and coherently link the different forms of institutional pressure that different institutions in the new era of multi-scale governance exert on a university, particularly in the context of the development of a campus-model Innovation Park. More broadly, this body of literature did not seek to understand how the ideologies and ambitions of the modern engaged university and its partners have come together to be manifested in place. It is this gap that my thesis seeks to address through my research question and set of sub-questions. For this study, notions of institutional pressure, neoliberalisation, governance, and development are key concepts.
32 3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter will explain and justify the sub-questions that will be used to answer the research question, the methods of data collection that have been used in this thesis, and the analytical framework that will be used in this thesis. It will finish by operationalizing the key concepts for data analysis, and framing them in a conceptual scheme.
3.2 Research Questions
In the new era of multi-scale governance in the UK, how has the development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP) by the University of Nottingham been shaped by different internal and external institutions?
This research question will be broken down into six sub-questions for it to be answered effectively. The sub-questions that this thesis will answer are listed below:
1) What is the University of Nottingham Innovation Park
To answer this sub-question, a through description of the UNIP was be provided. This included information about the history of the site, details of its current state, and information about future developments that are planned. It is important to be aware of this contextual data to effectively answer the overall research question. Data for this sub-question will be primarily gathered through document analysis, particularly from planning documents.
2) What is the rationale for the University of Nottingham to develop UNIP?
It is important to answer this sub-question to ultimately judge the main motives for the University of Nottingham to dedicate a large area on its Jubilee Campus and a large section of its reserve funds to construct and manage UNIP. Data for this sub-question was primarily gathered through document analysis, particularly through official university documents.
33 Semi-structured interviews with staff at the University of Nottingham complimented this data.
3) What stakeholders, both internal and external, have exerted forms of institutional pressure on the University of Nottingham in the development of UNIP?
It was essential for this analysis to be aware of the different stakeholders that have a role in shaping UNIP. Without a full exploration into this range of stakeholders, this analysis would have been narrow and would have thus neglected wider forces that have a role in the
development of UNIP outside the University. Data for this sub-question was primarily gathered from semi-structured interviews.
4) Why have these stakeholders, both external and internal, exerted forms of institutional pressure on the University of Nottingham in the development of UNIP?
It is important to answer this sub-question to determine the motives of different stakeholders that try and shape UNIP for a particular reason. This sub question may reveal competing or uniting agendas by different stakeholders. Again, data for this sub-question was primarily gathered from semi-structured interviews.
5) What are the different manifestations of institutional pressure, as coercive, mimetic, or normative institutional pressure, that are exerted by relevant stakeholders to encourage UNIP to be developed in a particular way?
This sub-question is important to the overall research question because it can provide a detailed insight into how different stakeholders are able to exert institutional pressure in line with their incentives to develop UNIP in a particular way. Coercive, mimetic, and normative pressure will be defined and operationalized later in this thesis. Data for this sub-question was primarily gathered through semi-structured interviews.
34
6) How have institutional pressures, which are exerted by different internal and external stakeholders, affected how the University of Nottingham has developed and continues to develop UNIP?
This sub-question will analyse the direct impact that the different stakeholders have had on the development of UNIP. It will do this by analysing the physical characteristics of UNIP to determine why the Innovation Park has been developed in the way that it has by the
University of Nottingham. This sub-question will provide a detailed insight into the power dynamics of the different stakeholders that play a role in the development of UNIP. It is likely that the characteristics of UNIP as a site will reflect the incentives of the most powerful stakeholders. Furthermore, this question can enable this thesis to expand on traditional
engaged university theory to determine how the ideologies of the most powerful stakeholders that are involved in developing UNIP are manifested to form a geographically specific place. Data for this final sub-question will again primarily be gathered through semi-structured interviews.
3.3 Semi-structured Interviews
A semi-structured interview can be defined as ‘an interview in which the researcher asks open questions relating to a predetermined range of themes, listed in a topic guide.’ (Seale, 2012, 594). As such, this form of interview allows for questions to be asked in a flexible manner (Bryce et al, 2011). Oppenheim (1992) states that semi-structured interviews can be a useful data collection method for research questions that require a dynamic, comprehensive, and explanatory data set. They also allow for the interviewee to expand on particular issues that they feel are important, and comment on issues that may have previously been
unanticipated by the interviewer (Matthew and Ross, 2010). The interviewer can still retain an element of structure to make sure all research areas and goals are recovered. Semi-structured interviews can also allow the interviewer to compare interview transcripts (May, 2011).
For this thesis, 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The names and title of each interviewee is described in table 1, as is the location and date of every interview. Each interview that was conducted was an elite interview. Harvey (2010) states that an elite is an interviewee that is in a privileged position to access or control important resources or
35 information. This form of interview is especially useful for an institutional study, as elites are often important stakeholders within an institution (Darbi and Hall, 2014). As such, they often have a role in the orchestration of an agenda that a particular institution works towards. Elites may therefore be able to provide information that is not available elsewhere (Darbi and Hall, 2014). Elite interviews were therefore an essential method of data collection for this thesis, as they provided data about institutional motives, relationships, power dynamics, tensions, and pressures in the development of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park (UNIP). The Interview with Derek McAuley was conducted on Skype, as this was the most convenient form of interview for him due to the nomadic nature of his profession. The interview with Tracey Allen was a phone interview because the Higher Education Funding Council England (HEFCE) is located in Bristol. Due to cost and timing limitations, it was not possible to travel to Bristol to conduct this interview in person. All other interviews were conducted face to face. The topic list for these interviews is documented in appendix A. For more information about the roles of the interviewees, see appendix C.
Table 1: Interview Information
Name Title Date Location
Derek McAuley Director of Horizon, University of Nottingham
30/04/2015 N/A
Paul O’Neil Director of the EMLA 05/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham Robert Scott Director of UNIP, University of
Nottingham
06/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Dan King Head of Business Engagement, University of Nottingham
06/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Andrea McClusky Business Development Officer for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, University of
Nottingham
06/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Nicola Moules Business Development Officer for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, University of
Nottingham
06/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Thomas Loya Director for Strategy, Planning, and Performance at the University of Nottingham
06/05/2015 Portland Building, University Park, Nottingham
David Southall Innovation Fellowships Manager
07/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Christopher Guest Business Development Manager, the Institute of
Aerospace Technology
07/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Anna Gray Founder and Manager of Model Students Ltd
07/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Sally Chippendale Head of Corporate Finance, University of Nottingham
11/05/2015 Kings Meadow Campus, Nottingham Harry Copson President, University of
Nottingham Students Union
11/05/2015 Portland Building, University Park, Nottingham Catherine Appleby Trade and Account Manager of
Invest in Nottingham, Nottingham City Council
36 David Ralph Chief Executive of the D2N2
Local Enterprise Partnership
12/05/2015 NG2 Business Park, Nottingham Adam Bevis-Knowles Education Officer, University of
Nottingham Students Union
12/05/2015 Portland Building, University Park, Nottingham Andrew Greenman Assistant Professor, University
of Nottingham Business School
13/05/2015 Business School South, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham Entrepreneur A Founder and Manager of
Company A
15/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Susan Jones Horizon Transformation Manager, University of
Nottingham
18/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham
Alison Stacey Business Growth Development Specialist, Nottingham City
Council
18/05/2015 Loxley House, Nottingham
Chris Henning Director of Economic Development, Nottingham City
Council
19/05/2015 Loxley House, Nottingham
Jeannie Holstein Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham Business School
20/05/2015 Business School North, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham Nick McDonald Councillor, Nottingham City
Council
21/05/2015 Loxley House, Nottingham
Melanie Watts ALCE Project Manager 22/05/2015 UNIP, Nottingham Tracey Allen HEFCE Regional Consultant for
the Midlands and South
22/05/2015 N/A
The interviewees were chosen through purposive sampling. Matthew and Ross (2010, 225) describe that in purposive sampling ‘participants are often chosen with purpose to enable the researcher to explore the research question’. As such, all the interviewees were chosen as it was believed that they may have an impact in the development of UNIP. Prior research before determining the interview contacts was therefore necessary to assess the likelihood that each interviewee may be involved in the development of UNIP. This was done through a literature analysis as well as a document analysis of secondary sources.
The interviewees were all contacted via email. However, as Richards (1996) states, elites are typically difficult to access for research projects due to their often busy schedules that derive from their position of power. As such, contacts were told that the interview would last 45 minutes, as not to take too much time away from their professional duties. Nevertheless, a 45 minute interview would still be enough time to gain a high volume of explanatory data. The interviewee was able to choose a venue of their choice for their convenience, as Williams (2003) states that this is likely to increase the success rate of elite interview arrangements. The interviewees were also allowed to choose a particular time and data for the interview. However, this could not conflict with previously arranged interviews, and had to be within a period from the 30th April 2015 to the 22nd May 2015. This is because this period was the only available timeframe that interview data collection could take place, as all of the interviews were located in the UK.
