On epistemology and practical reason of university-entrepreneurship research and development cooperation

  • Sergey Porev Ph.D., Head of Laboratory for Problems of Science Organization in Universities, Institute of Magnetism NAS and MES of Ukraine
Keywords: university, research group, small firm, cooperation, knowledge, transfer, epistemological gap, innovative.

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of epistemological foundations and practical aspects of the cooperation of university researchers with small innovative firms on the issues of implementation, technological and commercial mastering of research and development results.

It is shown that in the case of transfer between subjects of knowledge that are considered as justified true belief, there is an epistemological gap, since the justified human belief, despite the intersubjective origin, has a unique context of personal consciousness. At the same time, in the process of trying to transfer the subject of knowledge, justified belief is not transmitted entirely to the material carriers of voice, text, etc., since it can have a significant amount of both explicit and partially hidden links. In our opinion, this creates a certain epistemological gap between knowledge in the mind of the subject-author and his material reflection beyond consciousness. This gap in communications is complemented by the fact that a subject who perceives a voice or an author's text does not directly perceive justification, but is formed in his own context. In the study of practice this gap is often ignored. However, in our opinion, its consideration is essential for the transfer of research and development results, especially between communities with different backgrounds and activities.

The article notes that the technical, technological and practical «knowledge-how» is somewhat different in the aspects of justified belief from the propositional scientific "knowledge-that", and also in its measurements not only truth, but also usefulness. It should also be borne in mind that knowledge-as is created by researchers at the university as incomplete, because it needs to be finalized in a concrete context. In the case of the transfer of knowledge-how there is an epistemological gap of a slightly different nature, which needs clarification in further research..

Three approaches are considered for cooperation between research groups of the university and small firms. Among them, the traditional transfer of research and development results, the creation of firms based on research groups. Particular attention is paid to the third approach, in which university researchers work in the company in the process of implementation, technological and commercial development and complement their own knowledge for the creation of goods and services. It is shown that the use of researchers' work in firms to some extent deprives the epistemological gaps of innovation process, but may have complications due to insufficient experience and competence of researchers in entrepreneurial activity. The latter largely concerns the approach by which research groups of universities turn into innovative firms.

References

Aristotle – Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean Ethics. (D. Ross, Trans.; L. Brown, Revised). New York : Oxford University Press Inc. – XLIII+277р.
Brown, 2016 – Brown, R. (2016). Mission Impossible? The Role of Universities in Peripheral Regional Innovative Systems. Industry and Innovation. Special Issue on ‘Innovation Policy: Can It Make a Difference?’. – 32 p.
Brown, 2017 – Brown, R. & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49, 11-30.
Brownstein, 2016 – Brownstein, M. & Michaelson, E. (2016). Doing without believing: Intellectualism, knowledge-how, and belief-attribution. Synthese, 193 (9), 2815-2836.
Chang, 2016 – Chang, H. (2016). Peer review of the Ukrainian research and innovation system
(Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
EC, 2013 – European Commission (2013). Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan- Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. Retrieved from http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF.
Etzkowitz, 2003 – Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.
Fantl, 2017 – Fantl, J. (2017). Knowledge How. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/knowledge-how/.
Floridi, 2012 – Floridi, L. (2012). Semantic information and the network theory of account.
Synthese,184(3), 431-454.
Guerrero, 2016 – Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551-563.
Ichikawa, 2017 – Ichikawa, J.J. & Steup, M. The Analysis of Knowledge, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/knowledge-analysis/.
Lundvall, 2002 – Lundvall, B-Å., Johnson, B. Andersen, E.S. & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213-231.
KMU, 2017 – Stratehiya rozvytku maloho i serednʹoho pidpryyemnytstva v Ukrayini na period do 2020 roku, skhvalena rozporyadzhennyam Kabinetu Ministriv Ukrayiny vid 24 travnya 2017, № 504-р. [Strategy for the development of small and medium-sized entrepreneurship in Ukraine for the period up to 2020, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine from May 24, 2017, № 504-р]. Retrieved from http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/504-2017-%D1%80
Mingers, 2014 – Mingers, J. & Standing, C. (2014). What is information such that there can be information systems? Kent Business School Working Papers, Working paper No. 302. University of Kent, Canterbury.
Nowotny, 2003 – Nowotny, H., Scott, Р. & Gibbons, М. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: the New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179-194.
Porev, 2018a – Porev, S. M. (2018). What Ukrainian legislation proposed to management for research quality? Science & science of science. №1(99). – P. 30–42.
Porev, 2018b – Porev, S. M. (2018). Kontseptsiya pidpryyemnytsʹkykh ekosystem i realiyi ukrayinsʹkykh universytetiv. [Concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems and reality of Ukrainian universities] Zbirnyk naukovykh pratsʹ ChDTU, Seriya «Ekonomichni nauky», 48, 45-52.
Rao, 2016 – Rao, B. & Mulloth, B. (2016). The role of universities in encouraging growth of technology-based new ventures. Int. Journ. of Innov. and Technology Manag., 14(4). – 22p.
Schwitzgebel, 2015 – Schwitzgebel, E. (2015). Belief. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
Siegel, 2015 – Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink?
British Journal of Management, 26, 582-595.
Stam, 2016 – Stam, E. & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. USE Discussion paper series nо: 16-13. UU USE Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute.
Published
2018-03-15
How to Cite
Porev, S. (2018). On epistemology and practical reason of university-entrepreneurship research and development cooperation. HUMANITARIUM, 40(3), 160-173. Retrieved from https://humanitarium.com.ua/index.php/hum/article/view/449
Section
Philosophy