Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the participation in commercially- and socially-oriented Academics' Societal Engagement (ASE) activities, partnership choices, and funding preferences of academics working in public and private universities from Chile and Turkey. Chile represents a private-dominant higher education system (HES), while Turkey is public-dominant. This article presents the results of an international survey, the Academic Profession in Knowledge-based Society (APIKS), applied to academics from over 20 countries, including Chile and Turkey.

Design/methodology/approach

Through a quantitative analysis the authors analyse how the dominant institutional type influences ASE activities, partnership choices, and funding preferences.

Findings

Results from the analysis show that being part of a public or private university does not solely explain the activity type that academics engage with. Moreover, the rate of Chilean academics participating in ASE activities is more than twice that of Turkish academics regardless of the public-private distinction.

Research limitations/implications

Further research about the academic life and ASE activities using a qualitative approach can complement this study. Applying further in-depth interviews to obtain more information from external partners can provide different perspectives and help to better understand the ASE activities. Additional analysis could compare external activities by higher education institution (HEI) type regarding vocational/technical centres since the Chilean and Turkish private HEIs included in this study received a mix of public-private funds and are considered not-for-profit, so extending this research to include for-profit private HEIs may be worthwhile for additional comparison.

Practical implications

More support and funding for the development of commercially-oriented ASE activities is recommended for Chile and Turkey's HES. In Turkey, a law-update in 2017 facilitates the establishment of technology transfer offices (TTOs) as companies within universities (Author, 2019). Though it is too early to know its effects, a positive contribution is anticipated. Centred Chile's private dominant HES, it would be appropriate for this type of system to also create different support structures to incentivise socially-oriented external activities and partnership opportunities. As done in other universities, the establishment of a community engagement office may provide professional guidance for partnership creations. Regardless of a country's HE public/private dominance, diverse sources of funding and support mechanisms can also be created to strengthen organisational and financial autonomy facilitating academics' participation in ASE activities. For example, universities can develop institutional policies to support academic establishment, lead or join in administration of non-governmental organisations, or form institutional media to deliver academics' viewpoints of social issues to the larger and non-academic audience. University managers should also empower the connection between academics and industry and business sector through different organisational structures such as Research Office, Science Park Incubators, Career Centre, while guiding and financially supporting academics' research commercialisation by their TTO experience and sources.

Originality/value

The literature has studied the public-private higher education distinction in vast aspects, however, no empirical studies have explored it concerning ASE. Chile and Turkey propose interesting cases since they represent opposite ends considering the public-private predominance of higher education systems. Turkey exhibits a heavy public predominance, whereas Chile has a significantly strong private system.

中文翻译：

---

公私高等教育机构的区别会影响学者的社会参与吗？来自智利和土耳其的证据

目的

本研究的目的是研究在智利和土耳其的公立和私立大学工作的学者参与商业和社会导向的学术社会参与 (ASE) 活动、合作伙伴选择以及资金偏好之间的关系。智利代表了一个私立主导的高等教育系统（HES），而土耳其是一个公共主导的高等教育系统。本文介绍了一项国际调查的结果，即知识型社会学术专业 (APIKS)，该调查适用于包括智利和土耳其在内的 20 多个国家/地区的学者。

设计/方法/方法

通过定量分析，作者分析了占主导地位的机构类型如何影响 ASE 活动、合作伙伴选择和资金偏好。

发现

分析结果表明，成为公立或私立大学的一员并不仅仅解释了学者参与的活动类型。此外，无论公私如何区分，智利学者参与 ASE 活动的比例是土耳其学者的两倍多。

研究限制/影响

使用定性方法进一步研究学术生活和 ASE 活动可以补充这项研究。通过进一步深入访谈从外部合作伙伴处获取更多信息，可以提供不同的视角，并有助于更好地了解 ASE 活动。额外的分析可以比较高等教育机构 (HEI) 类型关于职业/技术中心的外部活动，因为本研究中包含的智利和土耳其私立高等教育机构接受了公私合营的资金，并且被认为是非营利性的，因此扩大了这一范围包括营利性私立高等教育机构的研究可能值得进行额外比较。

实际影响

建议为智利和土耳其的 HES 开发以商业为导向的 ASE 活动提供更多支持和资金。在土耳其，2017 年的法律更新促进了在大学内设立技术转让办公室 (TTO) 作为公司（作者，2019 年）。虽然现在知道它的影响还为时过早，但预计会有积极的贡献。以智利私人主导的 HES 为中心，这种类型的系统也适合创建不同的支持结构，以激励面向社会的外部活动和合作机会。正如其他大学所做的那样，建立社区参与办公室可以为创建伙伴关系提供专业指导。无论一个国家的高等教育公共/私人主导地位如何，还可以创建多种资金来源和支持机制，以加强组织和财务自主权，促进学者参与 ASE 活动。例如，大学可以制定机构政策来支持学术机构，领导或参与非政府组织的管理，或组建机构媒体，将学者对社会问题的观点传达给更广泛的非学术受众。大学管理者还应通过研究办公室、科学园孵化器、职业中心等不同的组织结构，加强学术界与工业和商业部门之间的联系，同时通过他们的 TTO 经验和资源来指导和财政支持学者的研究商业化。

原创性/价值

文献对公私高等教育的区别进行了广泛的研究，但没有实证研究探讨过ASE。智利和土耳其提出了有趣的案例，因为考虑到高等教育系统的公私优势，它们代表了相反的两端。土耳其表现出强大的公共优势，而智利则拥有非常强大的私人体系。