Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Yu Dai
 -- 1295 2023-10-11 13:53:15 |
2 layout & references
Sirius Huang
 Meta information modification 1295 2023-10-12 03:30:25 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Liu, C.; Wang, H.; Dai, Y. Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50131 (accessed on 19 May 2024).
Liu C, Wang H, Dai Y. Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50131. Accessed May 19, 2024.
Liu, Chao, Hexin Wang, Yu Dai. "Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50131 (accessed May 19, 2024).
Liu, C., Wang, H., & Dai, Y. (2023, October 11). Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50131
Liu, Chao, et al. "Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 October, 2023.
Sustainable Cooperation between Schools, Enterprises, and Government
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151813997

Promoting close and sustainable cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government has become an important concern in many countries. However, the reality is that the cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government has not been very effective.

sustainable cooperation evolutionary game theory school enterprise government

1. Introduction

In many models of economic development, the development of the economy depends on human capital (talent). Schools can be viewed as the producers of such capital and enterprises as the consumers. Thus, strengthening the relationship between schools and enterprises is crucial to maintaining a dynamic balance between the supply and demand of talent and promoting the growth of the economy. In addition, the government plays an important role in facilitating the connection between schools and enterprises. For example, the German government has established a series of laws, regulations, and management systems to ensure that students can acquire theoretical knowledge in school and develop practical skills in enterprise [1]. The U.S. government has also passed the Strengthening Career and Technical Education (CTE) for the 21st Century Act to support partnerships among various schools and enterprises [2], and the Chinese government has enacted Several Opinions on Deepening the Integration of Industry and Education to promote the supply side structural reform of talent and improve the synergy of educational resources and regional industries [3]. Promoting close and sustainable cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government has clearly become an important concern in these countries.
However, the reality is that the cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government has not been very effective. This is due to the differences in goals and culture between schools and enterprises, as well as disputes over the ownership of intellectual property. The differences in organizational attributes and social functions of schools and enterprises lead to two types of social division of labor, which results in differences in the goals of both of these types of institutions [4][5][6]. The goals of schools include cultivation, education, and theoretical research, and the primary goal of enterprises is to maximize profits. These differences in goals also lead to differences in culture between schools and enterprises, such as in organization and management, behavioral patterns, and approaches to schedules [7][8][9]. In addition, there are some differences regarding the ownership of intellectual property. For example, researchers at schools tend to publish research results in order to increase their influence and push the frontier of knowledge, but enterprises are incentivized to keep their core technology and know-how secret in order to monopolize the market [10]. All these factors can impede the cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government.

2. School–Enterprise Cooperation

The cooperation between schools and enterprises has been explored extensively in the existing literature. Many scholars have already investigated various school–enterprise cooperation models, such as the Dual System, Cooperative Education, and Sandwich Courses.
The Dual System is considered to be the driving force of Germany’s post-war economic recovery and has become an exemplary case of school–enterprise cooperation. Theuerkauf and Weiner summarized five major characteristics of the Dual System, including a broad basic education, combined technical training and theory, training directed at acquiring key qualifications, a standardized system, and a planned change from schools to the training system [11]. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) has also published a book to introduce the origins, features, and training processes of the Dual System in detail [12]. Pleshakova analyzed the genesis and development of the Dual System in Germany from a historical perspective [13]. Given the advantages of the Dual System, some scholars have discussed the practice of Dual System in countries other than Germany, such as Russia [14][15], Ukraine [16], and China [17][18][19]. However, there are also some weaknesses with the Dual System. Pritchard pointed out that the Dual System is permeated with tensions emanating from individuals, schools, firms, and various influential interest groups [20] that can limit competition in the labor market, delay adult status in the labor market, and fail to guarantee employment [21].
Compared to the German Dual System, in which the government and enterprises are deeply involved, American Cooperative Education and British Sandwich Courses are driven by schools, with little responsibility from government or enterprises [22]. Cooperative Education is a model of school–enterprise cooperation in America that refers to an educational program that combines classroom learning with work experience, and Younis and Pierrakos et al. argued that Cooperative Education is essential for both students and society [23][24]. Cooperative Education has also been found to have a positive impact on students’ early career success and self-efficacy [25][26]. Students who enroll in Cooperative Education programs can learn professional knowledge and skills and gain practical on-the-job experience [27][28].
Sandwich Courses are a British model of school–enterprise cooperation that involve a pattern in which periods of school study alternate with periods of industrial training or experience [29]. Sandwich Courses have been recognized as an effective method for accumulating sustained, structured work experience and improving employment chances [30][31][32].
The motivations and factors of cooperation between schools and enterprises have also attracted the attention of scholars. Lee and Win (2004) summarized the motivations of schools in cooperating with enterprises, such as assessing the needs of the economy and developing talent accordingly, placing students in industry to connect classroom learning with practical experience, conducting both fundamental and applied research, accessing protected markets, enhancing the business stature, improving the implementation of new technology, developing new products and patents, and saving production costs [33]. Arza (2010) divided the motivations of schools into economic motivation and research motivation [34]. Similarly, Lam (2011) argued that “gold”, “ribbons”, and “puzzles” are the motivators of researchers in schools for cooperating with enterprises and found that few academic researchers are driven by economic motivation [35]. Reducing transaction costs [36][37]; obtaining human capital, technology, education, and equipment [38]; and establishing a network of cooperation [39] have all been argued to be motivators of enterprises to cooperate with schools. Moreover, the factors influencing the cooperation between schools and enterprises, such as the scale of schools and enterprises [40][41], trust and mutual benefits between schools and enterprises [42][43], and culture differences [44], have also been widely explored in the literature.
However, the previous literature on models, motivations, and factors has focused on schools and enterprises. Although it has been realized that the government plays a crucial role in school–enterprises cooperation and a few scholars have proposed that the government should formulate some policies to facilitate cooperation between schools and enterprises [11][12], the government has not been considered as the main party in the cooperation between schools and enterprises. The influence of the government on the cooperation between schools and enterprises has been ignored.
In addition, evolutionary game theory is an effective tool for analyzing the strategic interactions between different parties [45], and has been used in various disciplines, including economics [46][47], public policy [48], and environmental science [49][50][51]. Some scholars have also introduced evolutionary game theory into education. For example, Zhu and Wang (2022) built an evolutionary game model involving government, universities, and students to explore the development of the choice between innovation and entrepreneurship in education [52], and Li and Wang (2022) discussed the management of primary and secondary school students’ online learning during COVID-19 lockdowns by constructing two game models involving “schools and students” and “schools, students, and parents” [53]. Zhang and Zeng (2022) analyzed the manifestation of both the instrumental and human value of education for sustainable development, and proposed that a country’s curriculum on sustainable development should start from concrete education issues that urgently need to be solved within the theory of sustainable development [54]. However, evolutionary game theory has rarely been used to research the cooperation between schools and enterprises.
To sum up, although the above research has provided some theoretical and methodological support for the study of cooperation between schools, enterprises, and government, there are still some shortcomings. (1) There are very limited studies that use evolutionary game theory to analyze the cooperation between schools and enterprises. (2) The role government plays in this cooperation has yet to be sufficiently revealed.

References

  1. Legal Framework and Financing. Available online: https://www.bibb.de/en/77214.php (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  2. Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. Available online: https://careertech.org/Perkins (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  3. Several Opinions on Deepening the Integration of Industry and Education. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2018/content_5254308.htm (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  4. Cyert, R.M.; Goodman, P.S. Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organ. Dyn. 1997, 25, 45–57.
  5. Wright, M.; Clarysse, B.; Lockett, A.; Knockaert, M. Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 1205–1223.
  6. Bergman, E.M. Knowledge links between European universities and firms: A review. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2010, 89, 211–222.
  7. Harrison, R.; Leitch, C. Enterpreneurial learning: Researching the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 351–371.
  8. Plewa, C. Exploring organizational culture difference in relationship dyads. Australas. Mark. J. 2009, 17, 46–57.
  9. Galan, M.V.; Plewa, C. What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessment. R D Manag. 2016, 46, 369–382.
  10. Perkmann, M.; Tartari, V.; McKelvey, M.; Autio, E.; Broström, A.; D’este, P.; Fini, R.; Geuna, A.; Grimaldi, R.; Hughes, A.; et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Res. Policy 2013, 43, 423–442.
  11. Theuerkauf, W.E.; Weiner, A. The German Dual System of Vocational Education and Implications for Human Resource Development in America. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2002, 1, 53–73.
  12. BMBF. Vocational Training in the Dual System in Germany; Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology, Public Relations Division: Bonn, Germany, 1997.
  13. Pleshakova, A.Y. Dual System of Education in Germany: Historical Context. Nauchnyi Dialog 2018, 10, 301–312.
  14. Remington, T.F. Business-Government Cooperation in VET: A Russian Experiment with Dual Education. Post-Sov. Aff. 2017, 33, 313–333.
  15. Dudyrev, F.; Romanova, O.; Shabalin, A. Dual Education in Regions of Russia: Models, Best Practices, Growth Prospects. Vopr. Obraz.-Educ. Stud. Mosc. 2018, 2, 117–138.
  16. Pyliavets, M.; Protas, O.; Martinets, L.; Lyaskevich, A.; Babyshena, M.; Chumak, L.; Lazorko, O. A Comparative Analysis of Peculiarities of Vocational Education in Ukraine and Germany. Rev. Rom. Pentru Educ. Multidimens. 2020, 12, 200–212.
  17. Cai, Y. A Study on the Education Model of Dual System in Comprehensive Universities in Germany. Stud. Foreign Educ. 2010, 37, 80–85. (In Chinese)
  18. Liang, L. Inspiration of German “Dual System” on the Cooperation with Enterprises in Application-oriented Universities. Sci. Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 128–131. (In Chinese)
  19. Yang, R.; Sun, S. A Study and Reference of the Dual System of Education Governance in Germany: An Analysis Based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. J. Beijing Adm. Inst. 2021, 4, 99–107. (In Chinese)
  20. Pritchard, R.M.O. The German Dual System: Educational Utopia? Comp. Educ. 1992, 28, 131–143.
  21. Shackleton, J.R. Training in Germany: A view from abroad. Educ. Train. 1997, 39, 303–308.
  22. Li, J.; Li, D. International Comparative Analysis of Industry-Education Integration in Vocational Education. Res. High. Educ. Eng. 2019, 4, 159–164.
  23. Younis, N. Cooperative Education Impact on Enhancing Mechanical Engineering Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012.
  24. Pierrakos, O.; Borrego, M.; Lo, J. Preliminary findings from a quantitative study: What are students learning during cooperative education experiences? In Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 22–25 June 2008.
  25. Schuurman, M.K.; Pangborn, R.N.; McClintic, R.D. Assessing the Impact of Engineering Undergraduate Work Experience: Factoring in Pre-work Academic Performance. J. Eng. Educ. 2008, 97, 207–212.
  26. Raelin, J.A.; Bailey, M.B.; Hamann, J.C.; Pendleton, L.K.; Raelin, J.; Reisberg, R.; Whitman, D. The Effect of Cooperative Education on Change in Self-Efficacy Among Undergraduate Students: Introducing Work Self-Efficacy. J. Coop. Educ. Internsh. 2011, 45, 17–35.
  27. Rowe, P.M. Work Experience, the Scientist-Practitioner Model, and Cooperative Education. Can. Psychol.-Psychol. Can. 2018, 59, 144–150.
  28. Chopra, S.; Golab, L. Undergraduate engineering applicants’ perceptions of cooperative education: A text mining approach. Int. J. Work-Integr. Learn. 2022, 23, 95–112.
  29. Baldwin, C.T. Sandwich courses in the universities. Phys. Bull. 1969, 20, 486.
  30. Jones, B.; Healey, M.; Matthews, H. The thick sandwich: Still on the menu. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 1995, 19, 23.
  31. Santiago, A. Impact of Sandwich Course Design on First Job Experience. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2009, 18, 205–217.
  32. Brooks, R.; Youngson, P.L. Undergraduate work placements: An analysis of the effects on career progression. Stud. High. Educ. 2016, 41, 1563–1578.
  33. Lee, J.; Win, H.N. Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation 2004, 24, 433–442.
  34. Arza, V. Channels, benefits and risks of public—Private interactions for knowledge transfer: Conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Sci. Public Policy 2010, 37, 473–484.
  35. Lam, A. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Res. Policy 2011, 40, 1354–1368.
  36. Mowery, D.C.; Sampat, B.N. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD government? J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 30, 115–127.
  37. Eom, B.Y.; Lee, K.D. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 625–639.
  38. Santoro, M.D.; Chakrabarti, A.K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1163–1180.
  39. Perkmann, M.; Neely, A.; Walsh, K. How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R D Manag. 2011, 41, 202–216.
  40. de Moraes Silva, D.R.; Furtado, A.T.; Vonortas, N.S. University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: A sectoral approach. J. Technol. Transf. 2018, 43, 285–315.
  41. Laursen, K.; Reichstein, T.; Salter, A. Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Reg. Stud. 2011, 45, 507–523.
  42. Numprasertchai, S.; Igel, B. Managing knowledge through collaboration: Multiple case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand. Technovation 2005, 25, 1173–1182.
  43. Rosendo-Rios, V.; Ghauri, P.N.; Zhang, Y. Empirical analysis of the key factors that can contribute to university-industry cooperational success from a relationship marketing approach. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2016, 10, 647–677.
  44. Li, Z.; Wang, D.; Li, X. Status quo and influence factors of university industry collaboration: Evidence of Zhejiang Province. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2012, 29, 150–154. (In Chinese)
  45. Shan, H.; Yang, J. Sustainability of photovoltaic poverty alleviation in China: An evolutionary game between stakeholders. Energy 2019, 181, 264–280.
  46. Zhao, R.; Zhou, X.; Han, J.J.; Liu, C. For the sustainable performance of the carbon reduction labeling policies under an evolutionary game simulation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 112, 262–274.
  47. Babu, S.; Mohan, U. An integrated approach to evaluating sustainability in supply chains using evolutionary game theory. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 269–283.
  48. Congleton, R.D. Game theory and public policy—By Roger, A. McCain. Public Adm. 2013, 91, 248–250.
  49. Hui, E.; Bao, H. The logic behind conflicts in land acquisitions in contemporary China: A framework based upon game theory. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 373–380.
  50. Estalaki, S.M.; Abed-Elmdoust, A.; Kerachian, R. Developing environmental penalty functions for river water quality management: Application of evolutionary game theory. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 4201–4213.
  51. Wu, B.; Liu, P.; Xu, X. An evolutionary analysis of low-carbon strategies based on the government–enterprise game in the complex network context. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 168–179.
  52. Zhu, H.; Wang, Q. The Development Dilemma and Path Choice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Based on Game Theory. Adv. Multimed. 2022, 2022, 2232253.
  53. Li, D.; Wang, W. Online Learning Management for Primary and Secondary Students during the COVID-19 Epidemic: An Evolutionary Game Theory Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12416.
  54. Zhang, H.; Zeng, Y. The Education for Sustainable Development, Online Technology and Teleological Rationality: A Game between Instrumental Value and Humanistic Value. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2101.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Chao Liu
,
Hexin Wang
,
Yu Dai
View Times: 240
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Oct 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback