Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

ISSN: 1360-080X (Print) 1469-9508 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Engaging staff communities in a knowledge

transfer strategy: a case study at the University of
Melbourne

Robyn J. Goodwill

To cite this article: Robyn J. Goodwill (2012) Engaging staff communities in a knowledge transfer
strategy: a case study at the University of Melbourne, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 34:3, 285-294, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.678726

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.678726

Published online: 06 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 324

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhe20
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 34, No. 3, June 2012, 285–294

Engaging staff communities in a knowledge transfer strategy: a case

study at the University of Melbourne
Robyn J. Goodwill*

Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Within the framework of the strategic journey undertaken between 2005 and 2010, this
paper seeks to examine how the University of Melbourne sought to differentiate itself
through the introduction and reconceptualisation of a ‘third stream’ of academic work.
Specifically, this paper seeks to investigate, through qualitative methods, how those in
leadership roles in diverse areas of the University understood and operationalised knowl-
edge transfer as a new strategic priority from 2006; and the approaches taken leading
to the University’s (subsequently refined) view of third stream activity as engagement.
This paper also argues that there were multiple barriers to introducing and implement-
ing the new strategy. However, once personal linkages were created between the changed
strategy and scholarly life, an organisational story developed with the potential benefits
leading to opportunities through mission differentiation, without the risk of unsus-
tainable organisational resource demands. Finally, this paper concludes that significant
change is not easy, but it is possible.
Keywords: change; knowledge transfer; strategy; third stream

Introduction
Knowledge transfer at the University of Melbourne was introduced in the Growing Esteem
Strategy in 2005 and it was a bold move for many reasons. At the time, the University
articulated that knowledge transfer was designed as encompassing multiple ‘dimensions
of interaction between academia and wider society’ including, but not limited to, two-way
exchange of scholarly information, policy work for government, industry and communities,
contract research and education services, commercial engagement, alumni relations, the
opening of and access to University-owned cultural collections, the stimulation of public
debate and dissemination of information and resources to the wider community. It was
intended to be outward facing, bringing ‘ideas to life and making knowledge work for its
students, staff and a broader public’ (University of Melbourne, 2005, pp. 7–8).
Over the period between the introduction and the revision of the Growing Esteem
strategy in 2010, when knowledge transfer was reconceptualised as external engagement
encompassing knowledge partnerships, interactions with alumni, advancement activities
and international programmes, there was great debate among academic and professional
staff members on how to operationalise knowledge transfer across such a diverse array of
activities, given the existing competing demands.
This paper assumes a context of significant challenges identified as potentially facing
Australian universities from 2005. In this environment, it is asserted, the University of
Melbourne sought to differentiate itself in terms of its mission-centric strategy, thereby

*Email: r.goodwill@unimelb.edu.au

ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2012 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the
LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.678726
http://www.tandfonline.com
286 R.J. Goodwill

positioning itself where it could capitalise on its institutional strengths. An explicit third
stream mission and strategy would therefore allow the institution to pursue a wider mission
and tap into a greater set of external resources as opportunities for programmes and projects
arose, thereby leading to greater social impact, without putting the enterprise at risk of
unsustainable resource demands.
However, introducing a third stream of academic work, equal in nature and in addition
to the traditional twin missions of teaching and research, was always going to be a challenge
in terms of defining the activity, measuring it in order to reward successful achievement and
introducing additional duties in a work culture that is traditionally time-poor. Competing
against available time and resources during the same period, academic and professional
staff throughout the University were working on introducing and then implementing the
Melbourne Model, which in itself had enormous workload implications. It could be argued
therefore, that the introduction of a third stream of academic work was compromised from
the beginning for many reasons, not due necessarily to traditionalism, but rather, due to
massive competitive workload increases.
Therefore, within the framework of the strategic journey undertaken between 2005 and
2010, this paper specifically seeks to investigate, through qualitative methods, how those in
leadership roles in diverse areas of the University understood and operationalised knowl-
edge transfer as a new strategic priority from 2006. In addition, potential drivers behind the
introduction of this strategy are examined, together with subsequent opportunities that may
arise as a result of this decision. The development of an organisational story, following the
University’s subsequently refined view of third stream activity remains an enduring feature
of this journey.

Method
In order to contextualise the background to the introduction of an additional stream of
academic work, I initially conducted a semi-explorative literature review of organisational
strategies, leadership and change management applicable in tertiary education institutions.
This was complemented by a comprehensive review of the strategic and operational plans of
the University of Melbourne between 2005 and 2010. At the end of this process, I prepared
a summary paper separating out the language and detail of the third stream without the
competing issues associated with other, more traditional, academic work. This method was
designed to explore particular changes to the language used and the depth of argument over
the period of time.
Seeking to elicit information from key strategy makers, influencers and implementers,
I then conducted seven semi-structured interviews over a three week period with a good
mix of leaders representing both the academic and professional staffing groups. Through
the lenses of their own experiences, the interviewees brought their individual perspectives
of the journey undertaken by the University of Melbourne. Each participant was asked a
series of similarly-framed questions, including:

• The individual’s conceptual understanding of knowledge transfer and later

engagement;
• Local perspectives upon the introduction of the new strategy;
• Discussion of individual action taken in order to negate opposition or misunderstand-
ing (if it was the case) within the individual’s area of responsibility; and
• Action to be taken to ensure the success of the University’s engagement priorities
going forward.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 287

There were clearly key themes identified during the semi-structured interviews and
therefore a wider review of the existing literature was conducted, with emphasis on seeking
to define the terminology more clearly.

Results
Defining ‘knowledge transfer’, ‘public engagement’ or ‘third stream’
Within traditional academic literature, there is no concise or agreed definition of knowl-
edge transfer and many authors interchange that term with public engagement and third
stream. Argote and Ingram (2000) argued that knowledge transfer is not necessarily an act,
but rather a process linked to organisational behaviour. Szulanski (2000) reinforced this
interpretation with his diachronic analysis of how knowledge sticks, and how it is there-
fore transferred at different phases of the process. Whilst the [Australian] Business/Higher
Education Round Table (2006) did not seek to define the term, it did make reference to it,
interpreting it as an interactive process - where knowledge is circulated between universities
to and from industry, business, government and society – rather than a definable act.
Striving to define the process of knowledge transfer applicable to universities in
Australia and publicly funded research agencies, the Australian Department of Education,
Science and Training provided the following definition through commissioned research:

Knowledge transfer is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government
or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to
enhance material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.

Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with
business or government to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed
to enhance the success of commercial enterprises. (PhillipsKPA Pty Ltd, 2006, p. vi)

In a world-wide tertiary education context, the term knowledge transfer is not univer-
sally used, although the intention behind different phraseology in use in this area appears
similar. In 2002, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities released a
guide for Presidents and Chancellors to assist them to lead public engagement within insti-
tutions. It indicated that there are inextricable linkages with the community which embrace
a wide variety of activities describing ‘a new era of two-way partnerships’ between the uni-
versities and colleges and the ‘publics they serve’ (American Association of State Colleges
and Universities, 2002, p. 7). This guide also indicated that public engagement is place-
related, interactive, mutually beneficial and integrated and stated that its definition was
‘direct, two-way interaction with communities and other external constituencies through
the development, exchange, and application of knowledge, information, and expertise for
mutual benefit’ (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2002, p. 9).
However, in the United Kingdom, these activities are considered to be third stream
academic work and in the Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities, Molas-Gallart,
Salter, Patel, Scott and Duran argued that ‘third stream activities are . . . concerned with the
generation, use, application and exploitation of knowledge and other university capabilities
outside academic environments [and] . . . is about the interactions between universities and
the rest of society’ (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002, p. iii–iv).
Holland (2005) argued that though the terminology varies across different nations,
and regardless of its nomenclature, an important linkage has been established between
academic activities (other than research and teaching) and the missions of the universities
and the communities within which the work resides. The Association of Commonwealth
288 R.J. Goodwill

Universities (cited in Holland, 2005) argued that third stream academic work is ‘now a
core value . . . which implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the
non-university world in at least four spheres: setting universities’ aims, purposes and pri-
orities; relating teaching and learning to the wider world; the back-and-forth dialogue
between researchers and practitioners; and taking on wider responsibilities as [institutional]
neighbours and citizens’ (Holland, 2005, p. 247).
Holland also articulates that the scholarship of engagement is a collaborative, two-way
mode of inquiry and is ‘an investment of the core assets of the institution, faculty expertise,
in the exploration of critical public issues and opportunities’ (Holland, 2005, p. 251). She
also acknowledges that there is expertise and essential knowledge which resides outside of
a tertiary education institution and therefore engaged scholarship requires a different par-
ticipatory and relational approach that shares design and reporting decisions with external
partners, contrary to traditional applied research methodology for example, which seeks
answers on community issues. ‘The partnership relationship is central to the scholarship of
engagement . . .’ (Holland, 2005, p. 252).
In seeking to assist the University to implement a new strategy in 2006, one of the
University’s key leaders, Professor Warren Bebbington, argued that knowledge transfer
is ‘where the university uses its resources to help solve a social problem or address a
major public issue, where university academics offer expert commentary in the media,
or where student artists and performers address public taste with an exhibition or perfor-
mance’ (Bebbington, 2006, p. 20). He also points out that the exchange must be two way,
not just the University paternalistically disseminating knowledge to the community. Lastly,
these types of activities must be communicated to the public in order to demonstrate the
quality and importance of the community’s investment in these institutions. Many years
later, the University of Melbourne’s Vice-Chancellor, at the 2010 Menzies Oration, con-
firmed the intent of the knowledge transfer strategy remains as connecting with ‘a wider
community through . . . partnerships, public lectures, collections, museums and galleries’
(Davis, 2010, p. 4).

Effective change management within tertiary education institutions

An examination of the literature on leadership and effective change management indicates
that change within a tertiary education institution is not easy but quite possible and often
necessary, although the method used to effect change must be different from other types
of organisations by the very nature of its academic workforce. In this regard, Fullan and
Scott (2009) argued that universities are much more resistant to change than many other
institutions, advocating a ‘listen, link and lead’ approach to initiating change. This obser-
vation is well supported by others, such as Parsons (1971), who stated that universities are
filled with academic members whose preoccupations lay in the delivery of their academic
mission within the specialisation they have chosen, ‘antithetical to bureaucracy’ (Parsons,
1971, p. 489). Moses (1986) concurred with this view, arguing that the innate character-
istics of academic work, such as autonomy, responsibility to their individual discipline,
and differing values and views based on their individual discipline, promoted this posi-
tion. However, if personal relevance and professional advantage can be demonstrated, then
change can and will successfully occur.
Hill, Jones and Galvin (2004) argued that organisational change in large, political
organisations involves implementation through negotiation, bargaining and compromise.
However, Clark (1972) found that within a community of scholars change is possible
through the building of the organisational saga – or story – which he defined as a ‘collective
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 289

understanding of unique accomplishment in a formally established group’. The develop-

ment of the organisational saga has a powerful and unifying effect with the capacity to
create links across disparate, academic subcultures thereby resulting in a unique, organisa-
tional bond. The use of a collegial and collaborative approach, which Hardy (1991) termed
‘pluralism’, could also be used to orchestrate consensus among disparate academic groups.
This approach will further utilise collaborative power to prevent collective resistance for
the purpose of the common good.

Economic imperatives to change

Sharrock (2007) pointed out that the massification of the tertiary education sector has
forced externally imposed change through mission modification by ‘macro-shifts’. This,
Sharrock asserts, is a result of successive governments linking educational and eco-
nomic aspirations. Similarly, internally-imposed change has been required, Marginson and
Considine (2000) argued, as successive governments have decreased public expenditure
and therefore universities have been required to become more creative and innovative, as
they are ‘increasingly exposed to commercial pressure’ (Marginson & Considine, 2000,
p. 96). Shattock (2005) also concurs with this view in that universities have been required
to look to alternative avenues (via entrepreneurial activities) to supplement, particularly,
their reduced government income.
Balancing academic values and market forces is not easy, Massy (2009) argued, and
suggests investing ‘strategically in initiatives that can, if successful, generate both academic
and long-term financial returns’ (Massy, 2009, p. 14). Protecting and enhancing the ability
to balance mission and market must remain a key goal, allowing institutional strength to
build thereby increasing market power and resulting in discretionary revenue which will
reflect the ‘impact of reputation on demand’ (Massy, 2009, p. 11).
Clark (1998) said that entrepreneurial universities are

places that actively seek to move away from close governmental regulation and sector stan-
dardisation. They search for special organisational identities; they risk being different; they
take chances ‘in the market’. They adhere to the belief that the risks of experimental change in
the character of universities should be chosen over the risks of simply maintaining traditional
forms and practices. (Clark, 1998, p. xiv)

However, for a university to transform itself to an entrepreneurial university, it must

re-structure and re-orient through organised initiative (Clark, 1998, p. 4).
Clark also articulated enablers for change: a strengthened steering core; an expanded
developmental periphery; a diversified funding base; and a stimulated academic heartland.
His theory makes it quite clear that a university can only be successfully entrepreneurial if
it contains these elements. Further, his theory indicates that should one element be missing
then the institutional change necessary for success will not occur.

Discussion
The history of universities throughout the modern world reveals an evolutionary modifica-
tion and continual refinement in purpose. Some early tertiary education institutions were
initially established to provide scarce knowledge, via education, to society’s elite. In the
early 1800s, institutions broke with the single mission (teaching only) tradition of that time
in order to contribute to the sum of human knowledge by conducting research. Whilst the
research-teaching nexus is considered a defining feature of universities in Western culture
290 R.J. Goodwill

today, Humboldt’s reforms (as the dual missions of teaching and research were to become
known as) were not uniformly ‘embraced by scholarly communities’ (Sharrock, 2007, p. 4).
By embracing the triple helix metaphor in 2005 which symbolised the three equal
strands of academic work of research, teaching and knowledge transfer, the University
of Melbourne sought to further refine and articulate Melbourne’s compact with the peo-
ple of Victoria, and, via its market share, the rest of Australia and the world. Indeed the
strategic agenda, known as Growing Esteem, released in 2005 (University of Melbourne,
2005) encompassed connection with non-academic partners and the academic commu-
nity was now empowered and expected to contribute in ways not previously articulated.
Although not explicitly stated, Growing Esteem provided a vehicle for Melbourne to dif-
ferentiate itself from other universities in Australia. This could be seen as providing an
important competitive advantage in terms of attracting the best students and staff, as well
as research funding, in an internationally-competitive educational and research environ-
ment. Further, in the face of externally imposed, government-led constraints, Growing
Esteem also potentially provided a strategic mechanism to systematically evaluate its exist-
ing strengths and weaknesses across all disciplines in order to strive to ‘become one of the
finest universities in the world’.
The concept of knowledge transfer was introduced as an explicit statement in the
2005 document: ‘Melbourne’s academic programmes should form a tightly-wrapped spi-
ral of distinct but related activities that together define the institution’s character. The
University has set three equal priorities – research, teaching and knowledge transfer’
[emphasis added]. By unambiguously indicating that knowledge transfer will be as impor-
tant as other key academic attributes traditionally associated with an established tertiary
education institution, the Vice-Chancellor was sending a strong message to his academic
colleagues as well as the community at large.
Whilst not explicitly stated in Growing Esteem, this pioneering approach was nonethe-
less potentially entrepreneurial in nature as defined by Shattock (2005) in that it encouraged
innovative behaviour by engaging in wide-ranging partnerships with external bodies, and
it had the potential to generate non-state funding which could be then distributed in ways
to further incentivise future academic activity, as well as cross-subsidise academic activ-
ities which were perhaps not adequately funded. This approach also supports Massy’s
theory (2009) that strategic initiatives open the possibility for universities to generate both
academic and long-term financial returns.

The terminology
The term, knowledge transfer, used in the 2005 strategy was perceived as problematic in
some parts of the academic and professional communities working at the University of
Melbourne. To realise its greatest chance of successful implementation, the University
needed ‘champions’ (Clark, 1972) and a series of high level meetings were undertaken
to ensure the definitional aspects were clearly understood and therefore those in leadership
positions would be able to collectively build an organisational saga from within their own
areas of responsibility.
However, a number of the research participants reported that it appeared that the proper
scope of the term knowledge transfer was not clearly articulated or uniformly under-
stood, and its potential application was not judged consistently throughout the University.
This led to significant internal debates highlighting the differences between faculties,
between professions, and between individuals. Therefore, the leadership of the University,
whose responsibility it was to implement the strategy, sought to rely on limited local and
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 291

international research to assist it to define the term, in a concrete manner, which would
be acceptable across faculties, between professions, and through the lenses of individual
academics. However, as the research was limited in quantity and depth, unlike research
on institutional research and institutional teaching which is vast, it did not assist in the
understanding or articulation of what ‘it’ (knowledge transfer) was.
Without the clarity of an acceptable cross-organisational definition, a number of the
research participants believed that one of the implicit messages behind the term knowledge
transfer was a push toward commercialism, which many in academia see as antithetical to
their own ‘public good’ orientation. Therefore, its overt linkages with commercialisation
caused parts of the academic community to be very cautious to embrace it as a concept.
The term knowledge transfer could also be interpreted as ignoring the two-way exchange
of ideas and knowledge shared through partnerships. It appeared to be a patronising type
of term: we know and we will tell you, indicating a paternal, one-way transfer of knowl-
edge. This implication did not marry well with various sectors of the academic community
who see their two-way exchange with their community as a vitally important part of their
individual and collective professional missions.
And yet, despite these negative connotations and interpretations of the term, the
international literature suggests that knowledge transfer is substantially more than what
was understood and discussed at the time. This was well recognised by the key leaders
interviewed for the purposes of this research.

Other factors
Most certainly there were multiple barriers to implementation of the new knowledge trans-
fer strategy, the definitional issue but one barrier. A major competing issue at the time
related to the implementation of the Melbourne Model, which involved a reframing of the
academic (teaching) activities at the University of Melbourne. Time constraints for aca-
demics are a challenge under any circumstances: when dual mission staff are not teaching,
they are researching (or administering) and there is little time for other tasks. Arguably, the
reconceptualisation of the teaching activities resulted in massive workload increases across
all sectors of the University. Knowledge transfer activities, it was reported, were potentially
an additional distraction from what could be seen as the core business of the University.
Therefore, it is quite possible that its effective implementation was resisted because of
workload implications, rather than staff not wanting to pursue third stream activities.
Additionally, in an organisational type which historically had rewarded and recog-
nised individual excellence in research and/or teaching achievements through promotional
pathways, rather than excellence in collective (organisational) achievements, the early dis-
semination of agreed definitions and establishment of effective measurement methodology,
thereby providing a mechanism by which to reward and recognise, appeared to be a further
major demotivating factor and disincentive to embed it into the culture.
Lastly, the Government’s strategic decision to exclude funding for third stream activ-
ities, in line with the view taken by the Review of the Australian Higher Education Final
Report (the Bradley Review) that academia should already be ‘engaged’, meant that in
practical terms, knowledge transfer would struggle to gain an equivalent status to that of
teaching or research, for which mainstream funding was available.

Opening the doors of opportunity

A significant driver potentially behind the introduction of the third stream of academic
work should be examined. The change from an elite system to a mass system of higher
292 R.J. Goodwill

education has not meant that universities have become wealthier: as their revenue sources
have increased so too have their operating costs. Universities, have, by necessity, become
‘entrepreneurial’ by becoming innovative and creative, if only to make ends meet.
The introduction of knowledge transfer (which has since been refined as external
engagement) was an opportunity for the University of Melbourne to strategically posi-
tion itself, cementing its position as one of the leaders within the tertiary education sector,
allowing it to become a bigger political force within the wider community. In seeking this
position, the University could in effect say to the general community ‘look at what we do
for you’ thereby putting itself in a position whereby it can influence attitudes, build new
and different partnerships, potentially resulting in increased funding from a myriad of pre-
viously unforeseen sources. This was never an explicit statement within Growing Esteem;
however, the third stream of academic work provides such opportunities, which may lead
to side benefits not initially anticipated, but nonetheless which may be beneficial to the
University in the long term. The retention of a third stream strategy, albeit reconceptu-
alised as engagement rather than knowledge transfer, despite the initial local feedback it
received, indicates that it retains strategic value to the university locally, and within the
wider community.

Continuing to build the community

Universities are political in nature and this was evidenced at the University of Melbourne
when the academic community did not fully embrace one aspect of the Growing Esteem
strategy introduced in 2005. Indeed, one could argue that the introduction into the academic
culture of an additional equal strand of work in 2005 was too ambitious. It is therefore
unlikely that the relevance and advantages of knowledge transfer, as it stood then – as an
equal partner within the academic mission – were established within the community. The
academic community reportedly resisted, albeit not overtly, the call to change. However,
within such an environment, resistance is not a concern; to the contrary, it is accepted that
faculty members need to feel their views have been taken into account as implementation
of academic initiatives is largely their concern (Massy, 2006).
There is no doubt that the release of Growing Esteem 2010 saw a softening of the
knowledge transfer line. The nomenclature change to external engagement allowed it to
now have a better chance to develop its own momentum leading to an organisational saga,
as defined by Clark. Further, and most importantly, the status of this stream of work, equal
with teaching and research, appears to be revised. It is now embedded within teaching and
learning and within research and scholarship, and this, it was reported, has allayed the con-
cerns of some of its critics, and potentially removed many of the barriers identified above.
These changes were reportedly widely welcomed throughout the academic community.
Further, the emphasis on external engagement, and external relationship building in
particular, provided an opportunity for disparate members of the academic community to
come together to collectively contribute to the resolution of the world’s ‘wicked’ problems.
This is an important development reported widely by the research participants: through
collegial efforts and despite initial reluctance, engagement is now embedded within the aca-
demic culture. Additionally, other benefits have emerged: through this model, students, too,
have the potential to contribute to the community in ways not previously explored, thereby
giving individual students the chance to develop to their full potential. This also enables
the University to continue to meet the Government’s expectations to assist Australia’s
economic growth through educational pursuits. The retention of this aspect of the strat-
egy, albeit amended and refined, remains an opportunity to which the University can
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 293

capitalise on, should it so choose to, in terms of cross-subsidisation of mission in order

to entrepreneurially make ends meet.

Conclusion
This study revealed tensions around the introduction of a new strategy at the University of
Melbourne as it introduced knowledge transfer, as a stand-alone, equal stream of academic
work, which later changed to engagement, embedded within existing strands of teaching
and learning, and research and scholarship. The study confirmed that before the academic
workforce can embrace such change, positive personal and professional benefits that the
change will bring must be demonstrated. Change will be resisted and ultimately not occur
unless further action is taken to correct the signals that led to disengagement in the first
place.
The knowledge transfer/engagement journey at the University of Melbourne itself has
been interesting. Whilst not rejecting outright the knowledge transfer strategy, the academic
community, through negotiation, sought creative solutions to what they saw as a challenging
and vexed set of issues. The reconceptualisation of the strategy to engagement in 2010 was
a very human response and the leadership should be congratulated for its wisdom whilst
demonstrating confidence and humility.
Based on this case study, in which the University of Melbourne sought to redefine its
strategic mission, one can conclude that changing the strategic intent of a university is a
long process, by which successful leaders must introduce promising initiatives, listen to
stakeholder responses, create personal linkages between the change and scholarly aims and
values, and make adjustments. Significant change is not easy, but it is possible within a
tertiary education institution.

Acknowledgement
This paper is based on the author’s project report, prepared while studying at the LH Martin Institute’s
Master of Tertiary Education Management programme in 2010.

References
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2002). Stepping forward as stewards of
place, a guide for leading public engagement at state colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://www.nchems.org/pubs/docs/stewardsofplace_02[1].pdf
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169.
Bebbington, W. (2006). Embedding knowledge transfer in the university agenda. Chemistry in
Australia, 73(8), 20.
Business/Higher Education Round Table. (2006). Universities’ third mission: Communities engage-
ment. Retrieved from http://www.bhert.com/publications/position-papers/B-HERTPosition
Paper11.pdf
Clark, B.R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17, 178–184.
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transforma-
tion. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Davis, G. (2010). Willing to try: The introduction of the Melbourne Model. (The Menzies
Oration, October 2010). Retrieved from http://www.unimelb.edu.au/speeches/Docs/menzies-
oration-20101012.pdf
Fullan, M. & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Hardy, C. (1991). Pluralism, power and collegiality in universities. Financial Accountability and
Management, 7, 127–142.
294 R.J. Goodwill

Hill, C.W.L., Jones, G.R., & Galvin, P. (2004). Strategic management; An integrated approach
(5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Holland, B.A. (2005). Institutional differences in pursuing the public good. In A.J. Kezar, T.C.
Chambers & J.C. Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher Education for the Public Good: Emerging Voices
from a National Movement (pp. 235–257). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marginson, S. & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power governance and reinvention
in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Massy, W.F. (2006). Using the budget to fight fragmentation and improve quality. In J.E. Burke (Ed),
Fixing the fragmented university: Decentralization with direction (pp. 122–144). Boston: Jossey-
Bass.
Massy, W.F. (2009). Academic values in the marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Management
and Policy, 21, 1–15.
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activ-
ities: Final report to the Russell group of universities. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/
collections/CCPN/pdf/russell_report_thirdStream.pdf
Moses, I. (1986). Using organisational theory in the promotion of evaluation: A case study. Journal
of Higher Education, 15, 619–639.
Parsons, T. (1971). The strange case of academic organization. Journal of Higher Education, 42,
486–495.
PhillipsKPA Pty Ltd. (2006). Knowledge transfer and Australian universities and publicly funded
research agencies: A report to the Department of Education, Science and Training. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Sharrock, G.S. (2007). After Copernicus: Beyond the crisis in Australian universities. Australian
Universities Review, 49, 2–14.
Shattock, M. (2005). European universities for entrepreneurship: Their role in the Europe of
knowledge, the theoretical context. Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy, 17,
13–25.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Journal
of Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9–27.
University of Melbourne. (2005). Growing Esteem . . . The University of Melbourne.
Retrieved from http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/86688/2005
finalgrowingesteem.pdf