Public policies for university–business collaboration in Portugal: An analysis centred on doctoral education

References

1. Alexander, A.,, Miller, K., and Fielding, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Open for business: Universities, entrepreneurial academics and open innovation. ’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 19:6, p. 1540013.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Amaral, A.,, Tavares, O., and Santos, C.. ( 2013;), ‘ Higher education reform in Portugal: A historical and comparative perspective of the new legal framework for public universities. ’, Higher Education Policy, 26:1, pp. 5–24.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Assbring, L., and Nuur, C.. ( 2017;), ‘ What’s in it for industry? A case study on collaborative doctoral education in Sweden. ’, Industry and Higher Education, 31:3, pp. 184–94.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bao, Y.,, Kehm, B., and Ma, Y.. ( 2016;), ‘ From product to process: The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. ’, Studies in Higher Education, 43:3, pp. 524–41.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bleiklie, I., and Hostaker, R.. ( 2004;), ‘ Modernizing research training: Education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. ’, Higher Education Policy, 17:2, pp. 221–36.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bloom, N.,, Griffith, R., and Reenen, J.. ( 2002;), ‘ Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979–1997. ’, Journal of Public Economics, 85:1, pp. 1–31.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bourdieu, P.. ( [2000] 2006), As estruturas sociais da economia, Porto:: Campo das Letras Editores;.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Carayannis, E., and Campbell, D.. ( 2006;), ‘“ Mode 3”: Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. ’, in G. Elias, and D. Campbell. (eds), Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters: A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, Westport, CT:: Praeger;, pp. 1–25.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Clark, B.. ( 1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation, New York:: Elsevier;.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Conselho de Ministros ( 2013), Estratégia de fomento industrial para o crescimento e o emprego 2014-2020 (Industrial Development Strategy for Growth and Jobs 2014-2020), Law n.º 91/201, Lisbon:: Diário da República;.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Cosh, A., and Hughes, A.. ( 2010;), ‘ Never mind the quality feel the width: University–industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA. ’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 35:1, pp. 66–91.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Council Ministers ( 2015), Regulamento Específico do Domínio do Capital Humano (Specific Regulation of the Domain of Human Capital), Ordinance n.º 60-C/2015, Lisbon:: Diário da República;.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cruz-Castro, L., and Sanz-Menedez, L.. ( 2005;), ‘ The employment of PhDs in firms: Trajectories, mobility and innovation. ’, Research Evaluation, 14:1, pp. 57–69.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Enders, J., and de Boer, H.. ( 2009;), ‘ The mission impossible of the European university: Institutional confusion and institutional diversity. ’, in A. Amaral,, G. Neave,, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen. (eds), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research, Dordrecht:: Springer;, pp. 159–78.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L.. ( 2000;), ‘ The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. ’, Research Policy, 29:2, pp. 109–23.
    [Google Scholar]
16. European Commission ( 2001), Towards a European Research Area: Key Figures 2001, Brussels:: European Commission;.
    [Google Scholar]
17. European Commission ( 2005), Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Commission Recruitment of Researchers, Brussels:: European Commission;.
    [Google Scholar]
18. European University Association ( 2005), Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society, Report on the EUA Doctoral Programmes Project, 2004–2005, Brussels:: European University Association;.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Falk, R.. ( 2007;), ‘ Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. ’, Research Policy, 2007:5, pp. 665–79.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Ferlie, E.,, Musselin, C., and Andresani, G.-L.. ( 2009;), ‘ The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. ’, in C. Paradeise,, E. Reale,, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie. (eds), University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht:: Springer;, pp. 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Fernandes, L.. ( 2014), Portugal 2015: uma segunda oportunidade? Inovação e Desenvolvimento, Lisbon:: Gradiva;.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ( 2002;), ‘ Relatório FCT 1997–2001. ’, https://www.fct.pt/documentos/RelatorioFCT-1997-2001-Final.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2020.
23. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ( 2013a), Diagnóstico do Sistema de Investigação e Inovação: desafios, forças e fraquezas rumo e 2020, Lisbon:: FCT;.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ( 2013b;), ‘ Relatório de atividades 2013, Lisboa, FCT. ’, http://www.fct.pt/docs/RelatorioAtividades2012.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2020.
25. Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) ( 2020), http://www.fct.pt. Accessed 1 December 2020.
26. Gibbons, M.,, Limoges, C.,, Nowotny, H.,, Schwartzman, S.,, Scott, P., and Trow, M.. ( 1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London:: Sage Publications;.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Gornitzka, Å.. ( 2013;), ‘ Channel, filter or buffer? National policy responses to global rankings. ’, in T. Erkkilä. (ed.), Global University Rankings: Challenges for European Higher Education, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 75–91.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Guellec, D., and Potterie, B.. ( 2003;), ‘ The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. ’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12:3, pp. 225–43.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Halse, C., and Mowbray, S.. ( 2011;), ‘ The impact of the doctorate. ’, Studies in Higher Education, 36:5, pp. 513–25.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Harman, K.. ( 2008;), ‘ Challenging traditional research training culture: Industry-oriented doctoral programs in Australian cooperative research centers. ’, in J. Valimaa, and O.-H. Ylijoki. (eds), Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education, Dordrecht:: Springer;, pp. 174–90.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Heitor, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Ciência e conhecimento na modernização de Portugal. ’, in M. L. Rodrigues, and M. Heitor. (eds), 40 Anos de Politicas de Ciência e de Ensino Superior, Lisbon:: Almedina;, pp. 81–146.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Henkel, M.. ( 2004;), ‘ Current science policies and their implications for the formation and maintenance of academic identity. ’, Higher Education Policy, 17:2, pp. 167–82.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Johnston, B., and Murray, R.. ( 2004;), ‘ New routes to the PhD: Cause for concern?. ’, Higher Education Quarterly, 58:1, pp. 31–42.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kehm, B.. ( 2009;), ‘ New forms of doctoral education and training in the European higher education area. ’, in B. Kehm,, J. Huisman, and B. Stensaker. (eds), The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target, Rotterdam:: Sense Publishers;, pp. 223–41.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Kingdon, J.. ( [1984] 2011), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Glenview, IL:: Pearson Education;.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Lakitan, B.,, Hidayat, D., and Herlinda, S.. ( 2012;), ‘ Scientific productivity and the collaboration intensity of Indonesian universities and public R&D institutions: Are there dependencies on collaborative R&D with foreign institutions?. ’, Technology in Society, 34:3, pp. 227–38.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Loxley, A., and Kearns, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Finding a purpose for the doctorate? A view from the supervisors. ’, Studies in Higher Education, 43:5, pp. 826–40.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Mok, K., and Welch, A.. ( 2003), Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region, Basingstoke:: Palgrave Macmillan;.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Nazaré, M.,, Rendas, A.,, Cunha, A., and Santos, J.. ( 2020), Relatório de avaliação da implementação do Programa de Estímulo ao Emprego Científico (Evaluation Report on the Implementation of the Scientific Employment Stimulus Programme), Comissão de avaliação constituída pelo Despacho n.º 349/2020, Diário da República, 2.ª série, 10 January, Lisbon:: Diário da República;.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Neave, G., and Maassen, P.. ( 2007;), ‘ The Bologna process: An intergovernmental policy perspective. ’, in P. Maassen, and J. Olsen. (eds), University Dynamics and European Integration, Dordrecht:: Springer;, pp. 135–54.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Odei, S., and Anderson, H.. ( 2018;), ‘ The influence of public support on university-industry-government collaboration: The case of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. ’, Statistika, 98:4, pp. 352–61.
    [Google Scholar]
42. OECD ( 2007), Reviews of National Policies for Education: Tertiary Education in Portugal, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/reviews-of-national-policies-for-education-tertiary-education-in-portugal-2007_9789264009769-en#page. Accessed 18 December 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Olssen, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability and impact. ’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37:1, pp. 129–48.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Patricio, M. T., and Santos, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Collaborative research projects in doctoral programs: A case study in Portugal. ’, Studies in Higher Education, 45:11, pp. 2311–23.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Rip, A., and Meulen, B.. ( 1996;), ‘ The post-modern research system. ’, Science and Public Policy, 23:5, pp. 343–52.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Rodrigues, M. L.. ( 2015;), ‘ Análise cronológica das políticas públicas: ruturas e continuidades. ’, in M. L. Rodrigues. (ed.), 40 Anos de Politicas de Ciência e de Ensino Superior, Lisbon:: Almedina;, pp. 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Roolaht, T.. ( 2015;), ‘ Enhancing the industrial PhD programme as a policy tool for university–industry cooperation. ’, Industry & Higher Education, 29:4, pp. 257–69.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Santos, J.,, Horta, H., and Heitor, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Too many PhDs? An invalid argument for countries developing their scientific and academic systems: The case of Portugal. ’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113:1, pp. 352–62.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Santos, P., and Thune, T.. ( 2021;), ‘ Social capital and university–business collaboration in doctoral education. ’, Industry and Higher Education, 27 December, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09504222211069804. Accessed 23 March 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Santos, P.,, Veloso, L., and Urze, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Students matter: The role of doctoral students in university–industry collaborations. ’, Higher Education Research & Development, 24 September, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1814702. Accessed 18 December 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Stewart, G.. ( 1999), The Partnership between Science and Industry: Cooperation or Conflict of Interest?, London:: British Library;.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Tomlinson, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Employers and universities: Conceptual dimensions, research evidence and implications. ’, Higher Education Policy, 34:1, pp. 132–54.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Van Deynze, F., and Santos, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ National policy responses to European institutional pressures on doctoral education: The case of Flanders and Portugal. ’, European Journal of Higher Education, 10:4, pp. 347–62.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Vedung, E.. ( 1998;), ‘ Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. ’, in M. Bemelmans-Videc,, R. Rist, and E. Vedung. (eds), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ:: Transaction;, pp. 21−58.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Winslett, G.. ( 2014;), ‘ Resisting innovation talk in higher education teaching and learning. ’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35:2, pp. 163–76.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Wright, S.. ( 2016;), ‘ Universities in a knowledge economy or ecology? Policy, contestation and abjection. ’, Critical Policy Studies, 10:1, pp. 59–78.
    [Google Scholar]
57. XIX Government ( 2015), Regulamento Específico do Domínio da Competitividade e Internacionalização (Specific Regulation on Competitiveness and Internationalization), Ordinance n.º 57-A/2015, Lisbon:: Diário da República;.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Santos, Patrícia. ( 2021;), ‘ Public policies for university-business collaboration in Portugal: An analysis centred on doctoral education. ’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 20:1&2, pp. 65–86, https://doi.org/10.1386/pjss_00034_1
    [Google Scholar]