Nowadays, the university-industry association is considered as an important relationship for promoting the universities, the industries, and also the countries (Arbuthnott, Hannibal, & Nybacka, 2011; Chakrabarti and Santoro, 2004). Based on empirical studies, the effective and efficient relationship between universities and industries can improve and provide extensive advantages and benefits for both sectors (Biedenbach, Marell, Vanyushyn, 2018; Anatan, 2015; Frasquet, Calderón, and Klemes, 2013; Cervera, 2012). Effective and efficient relationship between universities and industries can spread knowledge from the industries to the universities and vice versa, and then from the universities to the society (Baraldi, Forsberg, and Severinsson, 2013). There is a balance as well as a coordinate cycle between these two parties in many developed countries such as Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, the U.S.A, Canada, and Australia (Bagheri, 2004; Mortazavi, 2004). However, the collaboration between the university and industry is somehow different in the developing countries, e.g., some Asian countries, including Iran (Behroozi, 2009).

The importance of improving the universities’ connection to the workplace and providing students deeper insights about the reality of work and employment opportunities from one hand and some reports on ineffective collaborations and interactions between these two sectors in Iran (Shiri, 2015) have urged us to review and compare relevant policies and practices in Iran and Sweden as one of the leading and successful countries. As one of the most advanced countries in Europe, Sweden is embracing the need to create a more connected and functional relationship between government, business and HEI in order to increase employment, productivity and social cohesion (European Commission, 2011). As an ‘interactions’ between HEIs and businesses for mutual benefit, the university-business cooperation (UBC) by fostering and extracting its value can help society face a number of issues (Davey et al, 2013). It helps universities to tackle problem of decreasing public funds (Carayol, 2003), helps businesses to gain and maintain their competitive advantage in today’s dynamic international markets, contributes to the economic development on regional and national level (OECD, 2002) as well as meet the demands of the labour market to provide more relevant knowledge and skills and greater job prospects of students (Bozeman and Boardman, 2013). Additionally, there are substantial indirect outcomes of UBC including support in the creation of a knowledge economy (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), support for local business  (Davey et al. 2011), creation of jobs, stimulation of economic growth and increased living standards whilst reducing hindrances to good living. In this context, UBC creates mutual benefit for all parties involved, and wider, to society. According to the statistical reports published by UNESCO, that was mentioned before, Sweden was one country among countries with the high rate of research and development costs based on the GDP and Iran was among the lowest rated countries (UNESCO, 2015, Quoted from Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology, 2020: 20). Despite these achievements empirical data on Swedish UBC shows that this model has been facing to some concerning challenges and barriers towards intended goals. 

Indeed in recent decades Iran critically has been suffering from increasing unemployment rate among graduates resulting from mismatch between higher education and the needs of labour market as well as unskilled graduated students (Azizi, 2017). For this it is quite important to know how Iranian approaches towards connecting its higher education to industries is in the line with the most effective international traditions, policies and practices? 

However, this study aims to analyze and compare the policies and practices of cooperation between the universities and industry in Iran and Sweden towards suggesting some practical strategies by which Iranian higher education could improve its ties with industries and the world of work.

Based on the available theoretical insight, this study uses the ‘triple helix’ model of university–industry–government relations as the research conceptual framework based on which main university-industry cooperation indicators in Iran and Sweden will be compared (Etzkowitz, 2008). Therefore, in order to compare the university and industry relations’ policies and practices, the qualitative-comparative method was applied. Based on “different systems and different results” strategy, Iran and Sweden were chosen to be studied (Madandar arani & Kakia, 2019: 53-60 & 38-43). Participants included 23 higher education policymakers and employers representing the industries in Iran and Sweden. The data was collected via semi-structured interviews either in person or via phone interview. In order to confirm the validity of the data, the interviews were transcribed and sent back to interviewees to review, modify, and confirm their opinions. The coding or categorization method was applied for analyzing the data obtained from the interviews. The data was transcribed and coded using open coding, axial coding and selective coding methods. I

Universities’ efforts to manage external stakeholder influences in a highly competitive globalizing world of higher education are reflected in various changes to their business models in recent decades. In the light of these developments university-industry relations and its emerging models evolved through a series of transitions to the content, structure and governance of universities’ activities. Choice of a particular model therefore, is mainly influenced by a university’s strategic mission, vision, goals and actions, as well as areas of transformation. However, it should be also said that the future of universities relies on how successfully they interact with their numerous and diverse external stakeholders. In the “clients” category of external stakeholders, industry partners hold the second place by significance, just after students. University-Industry links from the perspective of intensity of their interaction in building relationship and doing work are usually based on ‘triple helix’ with particular reference to the C3 (Cooperation-Coordination-Collaboration) framework in which the interaction between university and industry initially starts via cooperation, followed by coordination, and finalized by collaboration as a purposeful deep and well-established dual engagement (Seres et al, 2019; Azizi, 2017). Compared relevant policies and practices indicated that Iran and Sweden are applying two rather different models for bridging their universities to industries. Despite this, the variety of interactions between these systems in both countries can be considered as their similarities. The findings also indicate that despite the reported needs for close collaborations between the universities and industries in Iran, current policies and practices, including training, laboratory application, and financial support, needs to be revised critically. Additionally, in light of our findings on the Swedish policies and practices for connecting universities and industries, some practical strategies have been suggested towards improving the universities’ relations to industries in Iran.

Anatan, L.(2015). Conceptual Issues in University to Industry Knowledge Transfer Studies: A Literature Review, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (211), 711 – 717. Arbuthnott, A, Hannibal, M & Nybacka, M. (2011). Renewing industry cluster development via interregional industry-university links. Int. J. Innovation and Regional Development, 3, (6), 604-631. Azizi, N. (ed.) (2017. The Need for Higher Education Reform in Iran. Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies. Baraldi, E. ,Forsberg, P. B. and Severinsson, K.(2013). Crafting University-Industry Interactions: A typology and empirical illustrations from Uppsala University, Sweden. The University-Industry Interaction Conference,May 27-29, Amsterdam, Netherland. Behroozi, M. (2009). Providing a suitable model for responding to the needs of the labor market through efficient communication between industry and the university. Journal of Industry and University, 2, (3 and 4), 63-74. Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, Agreements and Matching in Science–Industry Collaborations: Reassembling the Pieces of the Puzzle. Research Policy, 32(6), 887-908. Chakrabarti, A, K., and Santoro, M, D.(2004). Building social capital and learning environment in university – industry relationships. Int. J. Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1, (1), 19-36. Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galán-Muros, V., Meerman, A. (2011). Study on the cooperation between Higher Education Institutions and Public and Private Organisations in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Etzkowitz, H., 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), 109–123. European Commission (2011).Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020 strategy. Official Journal of the European Union (2011/C 70/01). Frasquet, M, Calderón, H, and Cervera, A.(2012). University– industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: an empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64, (1), 85–98. Klemes, J. J.(2013). Industry–academia partnership. Clean Techn Environ Policy, (15), 861–862. Leydesdorff, L,. (2018). Synergy in Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems at National and Regional Levels: The Triple-Helix Model and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Ministry of science, research and technology. (2020). Axis and Entrepreneurs in Iran; The future of the university community. Tehran: Scientific Policy Research Center of the country. Shiri, H. (2015). Investigating the Relationship between University and Industry and its Challenges: A Qualitative Research among Students of Tehran University. Journal of Industry and University, 4, (29 and 30), 1-9.