The six C’s of successful higher education-industry collaboration in engineering education : a systematic literature review

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The six C’s of successful higher education-industry collaboration in engineering education : a systematic literature review © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Vuoriainen, Antti; Rikala, Pauliina; Heilala, Ville; Lehesvuori, Sami; Oz, Sahsenem; Kettunen, Lauri; Hämäläinen, Raija Vuoriainen, A., Rikala, P., Heilala, V., Lehesvuori, S., Oz, S., Kettunen, L., & Hämäläinen, R. (2024). The six C’s of successful higher education-industry collaboration in engineering education : a systematic literature review. European Journal of Engineering Education, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2432440 2024 European Journal of Engineering Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceee20 The six C’s of successful higher educationindustry collaboration in engineering education: a systematic literature review Antti Vuoriainen, Pauliina Rikala, Ville Heilala, Sami Lehesvuori, Sahsenem Oz, Lauri Kettunen & Raija Hämäläinen To cite this article: Antti Vuoriainen, Pauliina Rikala, Ville Heilala, Sami Lehesvuori, Sahsenem Oz, Lauri Kettunen & Raija Hämäläinen (28 Nov 2024): The six C’s of successful higher education-industry collaboration in engineering education: a systematic literature review, European Journal of Engineering Education, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2024.2432440 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2432440 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 28 Nov 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 36 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20 The six C’s of successful higher education-industry collaboration in engineering education: a systematic literature review Antti Vuoriainen a , Pauliina Rikala a , Ville Heilala a , Sami Lehesvuori a , Sahsenem Oz a , Lauri Kettunen b and Raija Hämäläinen a a Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT This systematic literature review provides an overview of how higher education in engineering, in collaboration with industry, supports student transitions to work life. A qualitative content analysis of 36 articles published between 2013 and 2023 indicated that this collaboration provides numerous benefits for all stakeholders; however, challenges can impede or even halt those efforts. The reviewed articles address curricula, motivation, and professional aspects and demonstrate evidence of international research collaborations. Common collaboration patterns include problem-solving, product development, and assisting students in transitioning from academia to the professional sphere. While the benefits of collaboration are evident for all parties involved, challenges and hindering factors like time and resource constraints do exist. In the discussion, we introduce the six C’s: key factors for successful collaboration between higher education and industry; namely, clarity, communication, commonality, commitment, continuity, and confidence. A framework outlining potential success factors for higher education–industry collaboration is proposed. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 11 March 2024 Accepted 15 November 2024 KEYWORDS Higher education; industry; collaboration; engineering; conceptual framework; systematic literature review 1. Introduction The transition from higher education (HE) to work life is a critical phase in which educational background, work environment, learning abilities, skills, and social networks all play significant roles in graduates’ success and integration into a sustainable career (Blokker et al. 2023; De Schepper, Clycq, and Kyndt 2023; Grosemans, Coertjens, and Kyndt 2017). Graduates lacking the competencies and knowledge relevant to the workplace face a disadvantage compared to their peers when searching for employment (e.g. Ang 2015). There have thus far been mixed findings concerning whether and how well education prepares students for and supports them in school-to-work transitions: some reports suggest low levels of preparedness (e.g. Bax et al. 2023; Gawrycka, Kujawska, and Tomczak 2020; Prikshat et al. 2020; Winterton and Turner 2019), while others claim that students are generally well equipped for their work (e.g. Ali et al. 2017; Deters, Paretti, and Ott 2020; García-Aracil, Monteiro, and Almeida 2018). There is a need for a research synthesis of how HE supports this crucial life event. The focus of this review is to synthesise the research on how engineering HE, in collaboration with industry, supports student transitions to work life. Recent studies have emphasised the significance © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Antti Vuoriainen [email protected] Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2432440. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2432440 of collaborative efforts between HE and industry (Arcelay et al. 2021; Arthur-Mensah 2020; Husin et al. 2022; Romero-Gázquez, Cañavate-Cruzado, and Bueno-Delgado 2022), which can promote knowledge exchange, leading to advancements in innovative products, research and development (R&D) projects, and services (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa 2015; Bastos, Sengik, and Tello-Gamarra 2021; Zhang and Chen 2023). Other benefits include students’ practical work experiences, improved learning outcomes, study motivation, and preparedness for the transition to work life (Bennett, Knight, and Li 2023; García-Aracil, Monteiro, and Almeida 2018; Sabry, Gardner, and Hadgraft 2021; Thune and Støren 2015). Moreover, work life experience during studies may reduce dropout rates for students who struggle to see the relevance of their studies by helping them apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings, increasing their comprehension and interest (Hovdhaugen 2015). HE–industry collaborations have increased globally (Cohen and Eyal 2021; Husin et al. 2022). For example, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education has been promoting strategies like introducing industrial resources via collaborative teaching and dual teaching systems (Do et al. 2023), while Canada has leveraged cross-sectoral collaborations to provide work-integrated learning opportunities (Cukier 2019). In Europe, innovative training actions like IN4WOOD have proven to be practical tools for students, employees, and managers to learn about emerging technologies (Romero-Gázquez, Cañavate-Cruzado, and Bueno-Delgado 2022). The PoDoCo (n.d.) and Demola (n.d.) programs aim to enhance Finnish companies’ competitiveness and provide students with industry-relevant skills, emphasising the meaningful creation of HE–industry networks (Kunttu, Neuvo, and Tikkanen 2022). Studies in Turkey, China, and the United States have showcased the global recognition of HE–industry collaborations as bridging skill gaps and enhancing students’ competencies for employment (Akdur 2021; Babic et al. 2022; Qiu, Xu, and Omojokun 2020; Zheng and Shi 2022). The transition from HE to ever-evolving work life can pose challenges for graduates, as it is often marked by competition, mismatches, and instability (Alpaydin and Kültür 2022; De Schepper, Clycq, and Kyndt 2023; Figueiredo et al. 2017; Grosemans, Coertjens, and Kyndt 2017; Tomlinson 2023). Enhancing the transition phase and improving the employability of engineering graduates through stronger HE–industry collaboration can include internships, on-the-job training, capstone projects, and work-integrated learning opportunities (Brooks and Youngson 2016; Ford et al. 2019; Jackson and Bridgstock 2021; Winberg et al. 2020). The transition from HE to work life represents just the beginning of a graduate’s career path (Karaca-Atik et al. 2023). Moreover, transition processes vary among graduates; for example, in fields with high employee demand, there is a growing expectation for students to start working before finishing their degrees (Béduwé and Giret 2021; Hovdhaugen 2015). The interdisciplinary foundation of engineering places various demands on engineering curricula, pedagogical arrangements, and students themselves. Fostering students’ abilities to learn across disciplines and boundaries, collaborate effectively, and engage in co-creation have all been identified as essential elements in enhancing employability and work readiness (Fortuin et al. 2023; Oonk et al. 2022; Striolo, Jones, and Styan 2023). Hains-Wesson and Ji (2020) found that interdisciplinary study tours not only broadened students’ capacity to navigate complexity but also facilitated knowledge sharing across different fields of study, fostering the development of creativity. Communication skills, the ability to innovate, and possession of social and cultural awareness to collaborate with diverse groups of people are examples of skills needed in future work life (Jackson and Bridgstock 2021; Karaca-Atik et al. 2023; Lauder and Mayhew 2020). HE should not only equip students for their initial months or years of work life but also focus on fostering the skills required for their careers. While there are several best practices for successful collaboration, these are often scattered throughout the literature, with some focusing on specific aspects such as technology transfer or problem-solving (Awasthy et al. 2020). As a result, collaborations between HE and industry are often insufficient and lack effectiveness (Marijan and Gotlieb 2020), leading industry partners to question the potential return on their investment (Alhamrouni et al. 2016). Potential investment risks can significantly influence the strategic motives, intentions, and decisions of industry partners (Todeva and Knoke 2005). The success of collaborations is unlikely without a shared goal that is 2 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. interesting and beneficial for both HE and industry (Garousi et al. 2019). Hence, the realm of collaboration presents its own set of challenges. However, it also offers significant potential benefits for all stakeholders (El Hadidi and Kirby 2017). It is crucial to identify the most effective practices to foster strong HE–industry relationships (Cukier 2019) to benefit all the key stakeholders: students, HE institutions and staff, and industry (Shah and Gillen 2023). To this end, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to examine how engineering HE, in collaboration with industry, supports student transitions to work life. Thus, the aim is to explore various collaborative approaches that could help students transition into work life. To achieve this goal, the following three research questions (RQs) are addressed: RQ1. What is the current state of research and scientific research networks on HE–industry collaboration in engineering education? RQ2. In what ways is collaboration between HE and industry manifested? RQ3. What are the benefits and hindering factors of collaboration for the stakeholders (students, HE institutions and staff, and industry)? The article is divided into five main sections. The second section outlines the methodology employed, the third section discusses the findings of the systematic review, the fourth section discusses the results by proposing a framework for successful collaboration between HE and industry, and the final section gives the concluding remarks. 2. Methods A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review were carried out to address the research questions by providing insights into scholarly collaboration in engineering education and synthesising previous research to inform better practices and identify important directions for research and practice in engineering education (e.g. Borrego, Foster, and Froyd 2014; Xian and Madhavan 2014). For the first research question, a bibliometric analysis was used to provide a visual overview of scientific collaboration across countries and author–keyword co-occurrences depicting the central themes among the articles found in the systematic search. The bibliometric analysis, which was conducted using R and its bibliometrix package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017), provided a systematic view of the regional aspects of the research collaboration and illustrated the interconnectedness of related keywords. To answer the second and third research questions, a systematic literature review was undertaken. Following recommendations by Borrego, Foster, and Froyd (2014), the search and selection process was adapted from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021) and consisted of five steps: (1) defining inclusion criteria, (2) database searching, (3) title and abstract screening, (4) full-text screening and appraisal, and (5) synthesising. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) by Hong et al. (2018). Content analysis, a commonly employed qualitative research method for deriving meaning from textual content (Hsieh and Shannon 2005), was used for the synthesis. 2.1. Inclusion criteria This study focuses on HE–industry collaboration, especially how that collaboration supports students’ transitions to work life. All authors collaboratively defined inclusion criteria to include academic papers focusing on collaboration or the transition from HE to work life in the engineering education context. Peer-reviewed articles published since 2013 were selected because the engineering profession and discipline has grown and transformed a great deal in the last 10 years and to reflect the current state of literature. Only articles published in English were included. Studies EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 3 were not limited to specific methodological approaches or forms of HE-industry collaboration. The aim was to thoroughly understand the collaborative actions and interactions encompassing diverse research-focused, education-focused, and knowledge-exchange approaches. Furthermore, relevant full-length conference papers were included; conference abstracts were excluded. Table 1 presents the full inclusion and exclusion criteria. 2.2. Database search An extensive literature search (through early October 2023) for publications published since 2013 was conducted in three databases: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar. Information specialists were consulted for support in designing systematic review search strategy and database selection as suggested in earlier literature (Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020). The databases were chosen for their interdisciplinary focus, which corresponds well with the diverse nature of engineering. Furthermore, Scopus and Web of Science have the best visualisation of documents and a robust query engine, with Scopus being the most comprehensive repository indexing articles not covered by some other databases (Valente et al. 2022). Google Scholar, in turn, provides a powerful addition to other traditional search methods (Haddaway et al. 2015), although criticised for not being as complete as the other data repositories (Valente et al. 2022). The authors agreed to select these databases during an initial planning meeting in early September 2023, acknowledging that the choice of the databases could narrow the viewpoint to some extent. Based on RQ2 and RQ3, various keywords were defined for the transition from school to work life and the collaboration between HE and industry. These terms are all actively used among scholars. All authors discussed the search terms and research questions to ensure relevant keywords were identified. The first author sought expert advice from a librarian on searching and keywords. The terms used included ‘boundary crossing,’ ‘work-integration,’ ‘industry-academia cooperation,’ ‘industry-academia liaison,’ ‘industry-academia collaboration,’ and ‘career transition’. The Boolean operators AND, OR, and NOT were used to refine search results for engineering education and HE. Table 2 provides an overview of the search terms, filters, and search hits per database. Snowball sampling (e.g. Wohlin et al. 2022) was also used to identify additional articles beyond the initial comprehensive search. 2.3. Selection of studies After conducting database searches, a total of 13,578 articles were found and imported into the Zotero reference management software. A review of 478 titles and abstracts revealed decreasing relevance in search results from Google Scholar after the first 200 hits. This result was expected because, for example, Haddaway et al. (2015) recommended that Google Scholar searches of article titles should focus on the first 200 or 300 results. In cases where the information gathered from the title and abstract review was inadequate, the articles’ results sections were examined to ensure thorough comprehension. After removing duplicates, 461 articles remained. From this list, Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion Exclusion Peer-reviewed journal and conference articles accessible with full text written in English and published since 2013. Studies with empirical evidence that focused on the collaborative actions and interactions between HE and work life or industry or the transition from HE to work life in the context of engineering education. Articles which proposed or evaluated models or frameworks related to HE–industry collaboration or the transition from HE to work life. Studies that had an irrelevant topic or focus (e.g. not related to engineering or engineering education, HE–industry collaboration, or the transition from HE to work life). Studies that concentrated only on minorities or the high school or middle school levels. Studies that were dissertations, theses, conference abstracts, books, editorial letters, policy reports, or book reviews. Non-peer-reviewed articles. Articles in a language other than English. Duplicate results. 4 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. 53 articles were selected after excluding studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thus, excluding studies that did not focus on the transition from HE to work life in the context of engineering education or on the collaboration between HE and industry. The titles, authors, and digital object identifiers (DOIs) of the 53 articles were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, with columns for screening decisions added to the table. The first, second, and fifth authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 53 articles using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 1) and the Excel spreadsheet. The first author reviewed all 53 articles, while the second author reviewed 24 and the fifth author 29; each assessed inclusion with a ‘no,’ ‘maybe,’ or ‘yes’. A ‘no’ meant that a source did not meet the inclusion criteria, while those marked ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ were moved on to full-text screening. The authors’ estimates were generally in agreement, with slight differences in the interpretation of nine research papers. After an independent rating and comparison of decisions, consensus was reached through consultation. The percent level of consensus between the first and second authors was 83.3%, and between the first and fifth authors was 82.6%. The consensus percentages were calculated by dividing the number of identical evaluations between authors by the total number of items evaluated, then multiplying by 100 to obtain a percentage. One additional author provided input on conflicting decisions on two articles. A calculation of the Cohens Kappa revealed an inter-rater reliability of first and second author κ = (p = 0.60%) and first and third author κ = (p = 0.60%) indicating a substantial agreement according to Landis and Koch (1977). Limited access prevented two articles from being thoroughly reviewed, potentially leading to missed information. A total of 36 articles were included after the full-text screening process, with one additional article (i.e. Pogatsnik 2018) identified through snowballing. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process. The first and the fifth authors critically appraised the methodological quality of the included studies by using Hong et al.’s (2018) MMAT, which addresses the challenge of critically appraising reviews with different methods: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. The MMAT checklists include screening questions and items corresponding to different methodological domains. The Table 2. Search strategies. Databases Search string* The total number of studies returned from the database (N = 13,578) Web of Science ALL (“Engineering education”) AND (“Higher education” OR “College” OR “university”) AND (“Industry Cooperation” OR “Industry Liaison” OR “Industry collaboration” OR “Business cooperation” OR “Business liaison” OR “Work integration” OR “Boundary Crossing” OR “Transition to workforce” OR “Transition to labor market” OR “Career Transition” OR “Drop out”) NOT (“High school” OR “middle school” OR “secondary school”) (all fields) Timespan: 2013-01-01 to 2023-15-10 (publication date) 47 Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Engineering education”) AND (“Higher education” OR “College” OR “university”) AND (“Industry Cooperation” OR “Industry Liaison” OR “Industry collaboration” OR “Business cooperation” OR “Business liaison” OR “Work integration” OR “Boundary Crossing” OR “Transition to workforce” OR “Transition to labor market” OR “Career transition” OR “Drop out”) AND NOT (“High school” OR “middle school” OR “secondary school”) PUBYEAR >2013 231 Google Scholar Anywhere in the article (“Engineering education”) AND (“Higher education” OR “College” OR “university”) AND (“Industry Cooperation” OR “Industry Liaison” OR “Industry collaboration” OR “Business cooperation” OR “Business liaison” OR “Work integration” OR “Boundary Crossing” OR “Transition to workforce” OR “Transition to labor market” OR “Career transition” OR “Drop out”) NOT (“High school” OR “middle school” OR “secondary school”) (Anywhere in the article) Timespan: 2013–2023 (publication date) 13,300 *NOTE: The search strings were adapted for each search engine. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 5 assessment scale is ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘cannot say’. Seventeen studies, a notable number of which were case studies, lacked clear research questions or a detailed methodology. However, fifteen studies had suitable methods to answer their research questions. The quality assessment through MMAT informed the conclusions drawn and was complemented by triangulation in the research process to minimise potential bias. Weekly meetings were held to assess the synthesis and conclusions for possible misconceptions and biases. The quality assessment tool and results are detailed in the supplementary material (Appendix A, Table A.1). 2.4. Synthesis The following information was extracted in the Microsoft Excel coding form from the full text: (a) author(s), (b) DOI, (c) title, (d) publication rating, (e) country of origin, (f) field (e.g. electrical engineering), (g) research type, (h) student transition and transition support, (i) key findings, (j) benefits and challenges about what happens in the workplace, (k) suggested ideas for future research, and (l) limitations. Data were independently collected from half the articles by the second and fifth authors, while the first author collected data from all 36 articles. The initial data collection phase included a discussion among those three authors to ensure the standardisation of coding annotations. After all authors were consulted, additional information was collected from the included studies: (a) pedagogical model; (b) theoretical background; (c) perspective (e.g. university, industry, or Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram (adapted from Page et al. 2021). 6 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. students); (d) research design; (e) data analysis; and (f) unit of analysis. The second part of data collection was conducted in the same manner as the first by the same three authors. The analysis involved 36 articles. A qualitative content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon 2005) was adopted, building on previous studies to develop the initial coding framework and identifying additional codes as the analysis progressed. The findings and coding framework were discussed with all authors after independent coding, with the first author performing the final evidence synthesis using the collected data. This collaborative approach to the data collection and analysis process allowed for a comprehensive examination of the literature. 3. Findings This section is structured around the three RQs. First, the current state of research and scientific networks on HE–industry collaboration in engineering is presented. Following this, the focus is on collaboration between HE and industry. Finally, the benefits and hindering factors related to collaboration for the stakeholders are highlighted. From a future perspective, it is particularly interesting to understand when collaboration succeeds. Therefore, in the discussion section, the focus is on the key success factors of collaboration between HE and industry. 3.1. Current state of research and scientific networks on HE–industry collaboration in engineering The selected literature (Table 3) revealed that most of the studies included were published in 2022 (N = 7), 2016 (N = 6), and 2020 (N = 5). The results revealed interesting geographical variations. Most of the included studies were published in Europe (N = 14) or Asia (N = 8); two studies did not specify where the research took place. Methodologies included qualitative (N = 11), quantitative (N = 7), and mixed methods (N = 8), while 10 studies did not have a clearly specified methodology. A wide range of engineering disciplines were represented (see Table 3). Note that the letter P and the coding number (issued in alphabetical order) are used to identify specific papers in supplementary materials appendix 1A, 2A and 3A. Figures 2 and 3visualise the regional aspects of the country-scientific collaboration network and the interconnectedness of the most frequently occurring related keywords. Based on the affiliations of the co-authors (Figure 2), five blocks of collaboration between different countries emerged: (1) China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Unites States; (2) South Africa, Namibia, Malawi, and Algeria; (3) Sweden and Ireland; (4) Japan and Thailand; and (5) Brazil and Italy. Because of the differences in educational systems between countries and the notion that engineering as a practice encompasses different cultures, geographical areas, and organisations (e.g. Mahadevan 2014), intercultural scientific collaborations have the potential to provide diverse perspectives and innovative approaches to research (Fu et al. 2022; Ozdemir et al. 2023). The keyword co-occurrence network in Figure 3 shows which words appearing more than once occurred as a keyword with other keywords in the selected articles. The central keywords among the selected articles were ‘engineering education,’ ‘students,’ ‘university–industry collaboration,’ and ‘curricula’. Clustering the network using the Walktrap algorithm (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017; Pons and Latapy 2006) identified three clusters of keywords relating to (1) the central keywords, (2) semi-structured interviews and motivation, and (3) professional aspects. The most relevant sources were the European Journal of Engineering Education (5 articles), Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) (4 articles), and the International Journal of Engineering Education (3 articles). Other sources provided only single articles. There were no recurring authorships and no co-authoring between articles (Table 3). The number of articles published annually showed a slight increase (Figure 4). Except for two active years 2013 and 2018, the average total citation count per year remained relatively low (Figure 5). Overall, the results suggest that the topic showed a slightly increasing interest and some cross-national collaboration, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 7 communication gaps. Collaboration was also perceived as requiring too much effort and a significant investment of time and resources to achieve the desired results in 22 studies (Lautala 2013; Venson et al. 2016). On the other hand, in Valente et al. (2022) industry representatives expressed a desire for more extensive and comprehensive engagement with HE, rather than just occasional one-time visits. Collaborating with industry partners can be challenging for HE institutions due to hindering factors like a lack of resources and the perception that it requires a significant commitment as reported in 24 included studies (Asplund and Bengtsson 2020; Scachitti and Higley 2023). Other common challenges include dealing with greater complexity, attracting willing companies, and meeting the increased collaboration requirements placed on HE staff (Conradie et al. 2016; Sedano and Vasankari 2021). These difficulties also became evident in areas like pedagogical design, student supervision, and assessment in 23 studies (Alhamrouni et al. 2016; Venson et al. 2016). Two studies highlighted the increased workload for HE staff due to collaboration (Dieck- Assad, Ávila-Ortega, and Peña 2021; Sedano and Vasankari 2021). HE students often face hindering factors like the limited availability or short duration of industrial placements, internships, or projects as reported in 13 of the included research (Carbone et al. 2020; Friesel 2019). Collaboration with industry stakeholders is more complex, raising the skill requirements and expected outcomes from student stakeholders (Pyrhönen, Niiranen, and Pajarre 2020; Ståhl, Sandahl, and Buffoni 2022). In 8 of the included studies, there was a clear perception of inadequate communication, support or guidance for HE students from industry stakeholders (Lahdenperä et al. 2022; Shin et al. 2013). 4. Discussion The findings highlight the positive outcomes of HE–industry collaboration in engineering for students, institutions, staff, and industry partners. While there are clearly benefits for all the involved parties, challenges and hindering factors like time and resource constraints do exist. Collaboration between stakeholders has various benefits, including joint research opportunities and the ability for industry partners to influence academic programs. Common collaboration patterns include problem-solving, product development, and assisting students in transitioning from academia to the professional sphere. Clarity, communication, commonality, commitment, continuity, and confidence – the six C’s – emerged as key factors for successful collaboration between HE and industry (see Figure 7). These themes, all of which were identified in the articles reviewed in this study (see Appendix 3A for an overview), play a vital role in fostering effective collaboration between HE and industry stakeholders. Clarity encompasses well-defined stakeholder roles, expectations, collaboration guidelines, agreements on publications, patents, confidentiality, and communication methods (Jiravansirikul, Dheandhanoo, and Chantamas 2017; Yuen and Wong 2021). Understanding the expectations and objectives of other stakeholders from the outset of collaborative efforts, along with setting clear guidelines, communication channels, aims and goals, helped generate greater benefits or lowered the rim for stakeholders to participate and continue to participate in collaborative efforts (Sedano and Vasankari 2021; Ståhl, Sandahl, and Buffoni 2022). Juvane et al. (2020) noted in their study, that the industry members were uncertain about the university’s capability to even conduct projects in collaboration. Having clarity in stakeholder roles was especially important in collaborative efforts, which involved HE studies and students (Dieck-Assad, Ávila-Ortega, and Peña 2021; Ngonda, Nkhoma, and Falayi 2023). For instance, in Chew et al. (2021), deliberations were undertaken to ensure that industrial practice examples were related to the theory that was taught in the engineering program. In contrast, Xi, Shen, and Chen (2022) found in their survey results that 34.1% of companies perceived a mismatch between HE courses and their developmental needs. Chen, Lu, and Wang (2020) stressed the importance of defining the learning outcomes from the outset and listed a balance between the industry’s needs and theoretical goals in the course they studied. Alhamrouni et al. (2016) discussed whether industry partners should supervise final-year engineering 14 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. projects and stressed the importance of clear assessment criteria. In Valentine, Marinelli, and Male (2022) industry personnel were more motivated to invest time and effort into HE students’ learning activities, when there was a clear possibility for on-going engagement e.g. in the form of delivering quest lectures. Previous studies have also considered the importance of clarity in HE-industry collaboration. For instance, Awasthy et al. (2020) have proposed a framework for improving university-industry collaboration, highlighting the importance of several factors such as identifying the stakeholders, addressing intellectual property concerns, establishing efficient communication and setting basic principles for collaboration (Awasthy et al. 2020). Rybnicek and Königsgruber (2019) have also proposed in their review, that clarity between stakeholders is key aspect of ensuring industry-university collaboration has higher chances of being successful. Kauppila et al. (2015) also call for clear policies, roles and for example using key-performance indicators in monitoring and evaluating the collaboration. In Albats, Fiegenbaum, and Cunningham (2018) , clear division of roles and responsibilities contributed positively to efficiency of project delivery and the dynamics of the project. Communication refers to the channels and methods that HE staff, students, and industry partners use to connect with one another. To ensure successful collaboration between HE institutions, industry partners, and other key stakeholders, it is vital to establish clear, efficient, and consistent communication channels (Cruz and Dominguez 2016; Juvane et al. 2020). Clear, efficient, consistent, and comprehensive communication is fundamental to successful collaborative efforts between HE and industry partners because it allows for feedback and provides further opportunities to enhance collaboration (Ngonda, Nkhoma, and Falayi 2023; Rampersad 2015). Collaboration between HE and industry partners may face obstacles, such as unclear initiation of contact and a failure to maintain communication networks among stakeholders (Bodas Freitas, Marques, and Silva 2013; Pantzos et al. 2022). Effective collaboration is dependent on strong communication channels and skills. For instance, students have been reported to have deficiencies in interpersonal skills during internships (Lahdenperä et al. 2022; Rawboon et al. 2019). However, in Ståhl, Sandahl, and Buffoni (2022), external partners commented that students were regarded as professional and dependable. Earlier research, Kauppila et al. (2015) and Plewa et al. (2013B), for example, have expanded on communication as being key element of successful university-business collaboration. Kauppila et al. (2015) highlight the importance of using multiple effective channels for interaction and Figure 7. The Six C’s of successful collaboration between HE and industry. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 15 communication between partners, while Plewa et al. (2013B) stress the importance of communication in different phases of collaboration. Considering the fit of possible collaboration partner is also considered vital aspect of collaboration in earlier research (Awasthy et al. 2020; Kauppila et al. 2015). Commonality involves the shared expectations, goals, and aims of collaboration between HE and industry partners. Mutual goals were found to be crucial for successful collaborative efforts in several studies, resulting in a win-win situation for both parties (Johanyak 2016; Kauppila, Majava, and Kropsu-Vehkaperä 2016). The most shared objectives include aligning the engineering curriculum of HE institutions to better meet industry needs, improve students’ employability and skills, and foster closer collaboration between academics and industry professionals for knowledge transfer and R&D efforts. These shared objectives illustrate the importance of aligning the goals and aims of collaboration between HE institutions and industry partners (Cao, Tang, and Case 2022; Falcone et al. 2014). Shared mission or goal between collaboration stakeholders has been also identified in earlier research as key element of successful collaboration (e.g. Awasthy et al. 2020; Kauppila et al. 2015; Thune 2011). Rybnicek and Königsgruber (2019) have also proposed certain levels of flexibility in institutional factors, as coping with change, aligning goals and visions for collaboration requires understanding and accepting e.g. cultural differences and adapting to collaboration rules. Fernandes et al. (2023) found in their review multiple critical success factors of university-industry R&D collaboration, including mutual understanding of partner’s internal and external environment and needs. Collaboration between HE and industry requires commitment. Obstacles to collaboration arise when stakeholders perceive the absence of an appropriate level of consistent buy-in from another party (Al-Atroush and Ibrahim 2022; Dieck-Assad, Ávila-Ortega, and Peña 2021). Collaboration requires time, resources, and effort to succeed (Carbone et al. 2020; Friesel 2019). Ambiguity in stakeholder roles and collaboration benefits, short-lived efforts, the failure to maintain partnerships, and inconsistent communication can hinder commitment (Scachitti and Higley 2023; Sedano and Vasankari 2021). Asplund and Bengtsson (2020) noted that initiating collaboration requires time and commitment, while Lautala’s (2013) study revealed that industry members considered excessive time commitments to be the main reason for not collaborating with HE institutions. In earlier research, Awasthy et al. (2020) have suggested committing to collaboration being one of the success factors of collaboration. The same authors recognise that commitment is often result of establishing clear strategy, which involves aspects such as legal framework, for collaboration (Awasthy et al. 2020). Kauppila et al. (2015) also stresses the importance of commitment to the collaboration especially from managers and leadership, while also noting the importance of evaluating and monitoring collaboration in a balanced way. Long-term perspective of collaboration, motivation of project members and senior management commitment were also identified in Fernandes et al. (2023) as being critical success factors of university-industry collaboration. Continuity was emphasised as a key aspect in the success of HE–industry collaboration, with stakeholders recognising greater potential when collaborative efforts endured for longer periods. Even short-term collaborations like courses or site visits can be beneficial if collaboration continues (Cruz and Dominguez 2016; Valentine, Marinelli, and Male 2022). Collaborative efforts between HE and industry, such as internships and site visits, benefit students by helping them develop practical skills in an industry setting, gain a deeper understanding of engineering as a field, and even secure work offers (Juvane et al. 2020; Ozor, Achebe, and Sukdeo 2022). Longer collaborations have allowed for increased opportunities in research and in the development of new products for both HE institutions and industry partners (Johanyak 2016; Rampersad 2015). Additionally, these partnerships have facilitated the recruitment of new talent and provided visibility and image enhancements for industry partners (Morgan and O’Gorman 2017; Pogatsnik 2018). In addition, they have aided HEIs in further developing their curricula by addressing shortcomings and providing learning opportunities for staff members (Cao, Tang, and Case 2022; Rampersad 2015). The 16 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. accumulation of collaborative experiences increases the chances of successful collaboration in the future (Kauppila, Majava, and Kropsu-Vehkaperä 2016). Previous studies have found that HEIs’ networking level and alumni for instance, are important connections for HEIs, in establishing and maintaining networks for future collaboration e.g. with local companies and adopting strategies or policies to encourage collaboration (Awasthy et al. 2020; Garcia et al. 2019; Johnston 2021). Rossoni, de Vasconcellos, and de Castilho Rossoni (2024) have suggested that one way of overcoming barriers for collaboration between HEIs and industry could be to start with smaller projects and gradually moving to more complex projects, which would prolong the partnership and generate benefits for stakeholders. Plewa et al. (2013B) have also addressed the crucial role of the people facilitating and maintaining collaboration in successful university-industry linkages, while Awasthy et al. (2020) also note that the characteristics of individuals and organisations influence the level of collaboration. Building trust and credibility is closely linked to confidence in collaboration partners, which is crucial for successful HE–industry collaboration (Chew et al. 2021; Valentine, Marinelli, and Male 2022). The absence of trust has been cited as a significant barrier to initiating collaboration, particularly for industry partners. This may be due to unclear benefits, the substantial investments required, or a perception that HE institutions and graduates are unwilling or unable to bring firms added value (Conradie et al. 2016; Ståhl, Sandahl, and Buffoni 2022). In earlier research, Rybnicek and Königsgruber (2019) have identified trust between collaboration partners as a key element of successful collaboration. Similarly, Awasthy et al. (2020) highlighted social capital – including factors such as trust and mutual obligations – as essential for collaboration’s success. Thune (2011) and Kauppila et al. (2015) have also considered the importance interorganisational trust between collaboration partners of being key aspect of collaboration’s success. Plewa et al. (2013B) stress the importance of trust between stakeholders in different phases of collaboration, highlighting the importance of developing trust from the establishment point of collaboration. In their survey, Clauss, Kesting, and Franco (2024) found that formalising university-industry collaboration activities, led to less opportunism and strengthened the perceptions of trust and fairness. Table 5 presents a complete list of potential success factors for different stakeholders based on the benefits and hindering factors of HE–industry collaboration in the articles reviewed for this study. Earlier research has reported that solutions integrating work and studies often emerge in the later stages of academic programs, and that collaboration between HE and industry is often loose or occasional (Shah and Gillen 2023; Valiente Bermejo et al. 2022; Zhuang and Zhou 2023). Most of the studies in this review emphasised that collaboration takes time and resources for the various stakeholders to realise its benefits. Potential collaboration partners may have divergent expectations, goals, and definitions of success. Therefore, it is crucial to establish clear aims, a reasonable timeline, and the scope of collaboration to ensure mutual understanding, as previous research has also indicated (Fernandes et al. 2023; Plewa et al. 2013A; Thune 2011). Expanding on this, Rybnicek and Königsgruber (2019) have proposed that studying the environment in which collaboration takes place is advisable. The same authors stress the importance of awareness of e.g. current political or social developments. Atta-Owusu, Fitjar, and Rodriguez-Pose (2021) have also noted the importance of policies in encouraging HEIs and industry to collaborate. Building an environment and culture that Table 5. Potential success factors for different stakeholders in HE and industry collaboration based on benefits and hindering factors of HE–industry collaboration. Success factors Explanation Clarity Clearly defined roles, objectives, assignments, policies, and rules of collaboration Communication Clear, efficient, transparent, and consistent communication channels Commonality Shared goals or mission Commitment Collaboration and success require effort, resources, and time to cultivate Continuity Regular and broad interactions, meetings, and planning Confidence Establishing trust between HE and industries while recognising their different strengths and weaknesses EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 17 promote and encourage companies and HEIs to collaborate might increase collaboration’s chances of success. Although collaboration between HE and industry has been studied in many countries, actual multinational collaboration in research was not extensively practiced in the studies included in this review. Instead, the research appeared to take place in separate blocks divided by continents. Two of the included studies reported how collaborative efforts rest solely on the shoulders of individuals (Bodas Freitas, Marques, and Silva 2013; Valentine, Marinelli, and Male 2022). It is worth considering whether collaboration should be managed at an organisational level to ensure its continuity after transitions like staff changes. Considering the framework suggested in this study might be one way of streamlining the collaboration process between HE and industry to better serve all stakeholders. Additionally, more comprehensive support, such as government funding, legislative regulations, and guidelines, is necessary for successful collaboration. 5. Conclusion, limitations and recommendations Our findings delve into the dynamics of collaboration between HE and industry. The focus of the review was to synthesise research concerning how engineering HE, in collaboration with industry, supports students’ transitions to work life. By scrutinising benefits and the factors that hinder HE– industry collaborations from the perspective of various stakeholders, this study has provided perspectives that can help refine and augment future collaborative endeavours. Furthermore, a framework outlining the critical success factors for HE–industry collaborations was introduced (see Section 4). This framework proposes key considerations for the effective planning and execution of such collaborations and paves the way for subsequent research to investigate the timing and nature of collaboration challenges, strategies for overcoming these obstacles, and the mechanisms through which solutions are implemented. Exploring the influence of individual stakeholders and the process of scaling collaboration from passionate individuals to the institutional level also offers a promising avenue for future inquiry. The key practical contribution of this study is a framework that outlines potential success factors for higher education–industry collaboration. It serves as a tool for incorporating the six C’s when establishing and maintaining collaborations. The framework is designed to be both comprehensive and adaptable, recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all solution; all elements should be considered when designing collaborative efforts. Our framework complements earlier research on critical success factors of HE–industry or university–industry collaboration e.g. Thune (2011), Kauppila et al. (2015), Fernandes et al. (2023). Our study was not limited to specific methodological approaches or forms of HE-industry collaboration. The aim was to thoroughly understand the collaborative actions and interactions encompassing diverse research-focused, education-focused, and knowledge-exchange approaches in the context of engineering. We propose that our framework has potential to be applicable in different contexts and approaches of collaboration between HE and industry. Our results call for action, highlighting a need in the field of engineering education for closer collaboration, including expanded shared international research, to advance the development of academia-industry partnerships. Despite the pedagogical approach used (e.g. PBL), particular emphasis must be placed on the development of communication skills in education, as they are essential for effective collaboration across academic and industry settings. The framework has not been validated. Therefore, further evaluation and possibly further modifications are needed. Further research can help by examining individual factors and combinations of factors. Since we did not limit our study to just one or two continents or countries, future research could further explore global variations in collaboration and potentially apply the proposed framework within different contexts. Some relevant studies may have been missed during the review process. First, the review was limited to the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Researchers seeking a more thorough examination of collaborations between HE and industry should consider expanding the 18 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. search to include additional databases, such as ERIC and Compendex. Second, in the initial screening phase, a single researcher selected the candidate studies. While all authors applied consistent inclusion criteria, having only one author conduct the initial screening may be a potential limitation. Furthermore, although consulting information specialists, creating a keyword search strategy for selected databases was challenging due to the absence of standardised procedures. The lack of standardisation made it necessary to construct search queries through trial and error, which might have created difficulties in conducting accurate searches. Google Scholar was chosen for its effective tools in improving the accuracy and precision of search terms and for assessing the relevance and effectiveness of search queries. We find that, although Google Scholar can retrieve a large amount of literature, it should not be relied upon as the sole source for systematic review searches due to decreasing relevance after 200 first papers. Since the review was limited to the first 200 search results, some valuable information may have been excluded. A variety of terms were used to enhance the search results and gain a deeper understanding of the research topic. Despite our best efforts, the broad scope of engineering, with its many subfields, may have led to the unintentional omission of some important articles. Additionally, two articles were excluded due to the lack of full-text availability. The analysis of the articles required some interpretation in understanding the roles of different stakeholders in collaborative efforts. For example, if the role of HE staff was not clearly defined in collaborative efforts, but the paper topic referred to collaborating with industry partners to create a new course curriculum, it was assumed that teachers would also be involved. Similar interpretations were made when assessing benefits and hindering factors for different stakeholders, such as cases where HE institutions had difficulty finding suitable project placements for all students – seen as hindering factors for not only HE institutions but also for HE students. Despite these limitations, our study has several strengths. The authors held weekly meetings to discuss the review’s progress and resolve any ambiguities. The inclusion of studies from around the world enhances the comprehensiveness of our understanding of the research phenomena, facilitating geographic comparisons and underscoring the widespread interest in the topic. Moreover, by not restricting our database searches to specialised fields or methodologies such as qualitative studies of electronics engineering, we diversified our information sources. This strategy enriched our perspective, leading to a more expansive and nuanced comprehension of the topic. The use of a risk-of-bias assessment improves the transparency of evidence synthesis. This transparency allows for a more detailed interpretation of the results, giving both researchers and readers a greater understanding of the evidence. In summary, the use of diverse sources, regular team meetings, and the inclusion of risk-of-bias assessments contributed to the robustness and thoroughness of our findings. Table 6 provides a list of abbreviations used in this study. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 336231 and 353325). Table 6. List of used abbreviations. HE Higher education HEI Higher education institute MMAT Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses R&D Research and Development RQ Research question WIA Work-intergrated activity WIL Work-integrated learning WoS Web of Science EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 19 Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by The Academy of Finland (grant number 336231). Notes on contributors Antti Vuoriainen works as a doctoral researcher at the Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Pauliina Rikala is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Pauliina has a Ph.D. in Mathematical Information Technology, and her dissertation focused on mobile learning in a Finnish formal educational context. Her multidisciplinary background combines Information Technology, Pedagogy, Social Gerontology, Psychology, and Marketing. Her research interests include digital transformation, learning, and well-being and promoting them in a meaningful and sustainable manner in society and organizations. Ville Heilala works as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä, focusing on learning analytics, artificial intelligence in education, and future perspectives of digitalisation. Ville received a Ph.D. in Mathematical Information Technology from the University of Jyväskylä in 2022. Sami Lehesvuori is University Lecturer (Ph.D., Adjunct professor) in the University of Jyväskylä. He is experienced in studying learning interactions in traditional and technology-enhanced learning contexts. His background is in STEM education and educational development. Sahsenem Öz works as a doctoral researcher at the Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Lauri Kettunen is a professor of computational sciences at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He is also the Vice Dean responsible for education among the faculty of information technology and has been in charge of the planning and implementation of the new engineering degree programme at the university. His scientific research activities have focused on the intersecting field of technology, mathematics and IT. Raija Hämäläinen works as a professor in the field of technology-enhanced learning at the University of Jyväskylä, Department of Education. Hämäläinen’s research interests include collaboration, interaction and creativity at the professional learning settings. She is a well-recognized keynote speaker on novel methods, an associate editor of Educational Research Review -journal, a profiling area leader in JYU, and WP leader in a Centre of Excellence (InterLearn). ORCID Antti Vuoriainen http://orcid.org/0009-0007-1462-2336 Pauliina Rikala http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3736-8402 Ville Heilala http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2068-2777 Sami Lehesvuori http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3889-5279 Sahsenem Oz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4130-4687 Lauri Kettunen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0432-2675 Raija Hämäläinen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-9619 References A black star before the reference indicates, that the study was a selected study for the review. Akdur, D. 2021. “Skills Gaps in the Industry: Opinions of Embedded Software Practitioners.” ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 20 (5): 43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3463340. ★Al-Atroush, M. E., and Y. E. Ibrahim. 2022. “Role of Cooperative Programs in the University-to-Career Transition: A Case Study in Construction Management Engineering Education.” International Journal of Engineering Education 38 (1): 181–199. https://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol38-1/19_ijee4156.pdf. Albats, E., I. Fiegenbaum, and J. A. Cunningham. 2018. “A Micro Level Study of University Industry Collaborative Lifecycle Key Performance Indicators.” Journal of Technology Transfer 43: 389–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9555-2. ★Alhamrouni, I., M. A. Saad, N. Kamarudin, and I. Hack. 2016. “University-Industry Collaboration Through Engineering Final Year Project.” In IEEE 8th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), 170–174. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEED.2016.7856066. 20 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. Ali, K., A. Slade, D. Zahra, and C. Tredwin. 2017. “Preparedness of Undergraduate Dental Students in the United Kingdom: A National Study.” British Dental Journal 222: 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.272. Alpaydin, Y., and K. Kültür. 2022. “Improving the Transition from Higher Education to Employment: A Review of Current Policies.” In Education Policies in the 21st Century, edited by B. Akgün and Y. Alpaydın, 103–129. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1604-5_5 Ang, M. C. H. 2015. “Graduate Employability Awareness: A Gendered Perspective.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 211:192–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.083. Ankrah, S., and O. Al-Tabbaa. 2015. “Universities–Industry Collaboration: A Systematic Review.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 31 (3): 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003. Arcelay, I., A. Goti, A. Oyarbide-Zubillaga, T. Akyazi, E. Alberdi, and P. Garcia-Bringas. 2021. “Definition of the Future Skills Needs of Job Profiles in the Renewable Energy Sector.” Energies 14 (9): 2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092609. Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017. “bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. Arthur-Mensah, N. 2020. “Bridging the Industry-Education Skills Gap for Human Resource Development.” Industrial and Commercial Training 52 (2): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-11-2019-0105. ★Asplund, C.-J., and L. Bengtsson. 2020. “Knowledge Spillover from Master of Science Theses in Engineering Education in Sweden.” European Journal of Engineering Education 45 (3): 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019. 1604632. Atta-Owusu, K., R. D. Fitjar, and A. Rodriguez-Pose. 2021. “What Drives University-Industry Collaboration? Research Excellence or Firm Collaboration Strategy?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173:121084. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121084. Awasthy, R., S. Flint, R. Sankarnarayana, and R. L. Jones. 2020. “A Framework to Improve University-Industry Collaboration.” Journal of Industry-University Collaboration 2 (1): 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-09-2019-0016. Babic, M., A. Billey, M. Nager, and T. Wuest. 2022. “Status Quo of Smart Manufacturing Curricula Offered by ABET Accredited Industrial Engineering Programs in the US.” Manufacturing Letters 33 (Supplement): 944–951. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2022.07.115. Bastos, E. C., A. R. Sengik, and J. Tello-Gamarra. 2021. “Fifty Years of University-Industry Collaboration: A Global Bibliometrics Overview.” Science and Public Policy 48 (2): 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa077. Bax, B., A. Froissart, J. K. Lee, and M. Palamar. 2023. “What Works Best in the School-to-Work Transition?” OECD Education Working Paper 296. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/ 77de597c-en. Béduwé, C., and J. F. Giret. 2021. “Student Employment in France: Hindrance Rather Than Help for Higher Educational Success?” Journal of Education and Work 34 (1): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.1875127. Bennett, D., E. Knight, and I. Li. 2023. “The Impact of Pre-Entry Work Experience on University Students’ Perceived Employability.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 47 (8): 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023. 2220286. Blokker, R., J. Akkermans, J. Marciniak, P. G. W. Jansen, and S. N. Khapova. 2023. “Organizing School-to-Work Transition Research from a Sustainable Career Perspective: A Review and Research Agenda.” Work, Aging and Retirement 9 (3): 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waad012. ★Bodas Freitas, I. M., R. A. Marques, and E. M. P. Silva. 2013. “University–Industry Collaboration and Innovation in Emergent and Mature Industries in New Industrialized Countries.” Research Policy 42 (2): 443–453. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.006. Borrego, M., M. J. Foster, and J. E. Froyd. 2014. “Systematic Literature Reviews in Engineering Education and Other Developing Interdisciplinary Fields.” Journal of Engineering Education 103 (1): 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038. Brooks, R., and P. L. Youngson. 2016. “Undergraduate Work Placements: An Analysis of the Effects on Career Progression.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (9): 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.988702. ★Cao, Y., X. Tang, and J. M. Case. 2022. “Looking Beyond the West for Emerging Leaders in Engineering Education Reform: A Case Study of Two Chinese Engineering Schools Informed by Neo-Institutional Theory.” In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–5. Uppsala, Sweden: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962442. ★Carbone, A., G. M. Rayner, J. Ye, and Y. Durandet. 2020. “Connecting Curricula Content with Career Context: The Value of Engineering Industry Site Visits to Students, Academics and Industry.” European Journal of Engineering Education 45 (6): 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1806787. ★Chen, K., W. Lu, and J. Wang. 2020. “University–Industry Collaboration for BIM Education: Lessons Learned from a Case Study.” Industry and Higher Education 34 (6): 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220908799. ★Chew, C. M., L. Yong Ng, S.-K. Mah, and Y. S. Ng. 2021. “The Development of a University-Industry Collaboration Model Towards Work-Ready Engineering Graduates.” Research in Science & Technological Education 41 (2): 505–522. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1917535. Clauss, T., T. Kesting, and M. Franco. 2024. “Innovation Generation Through Formalisation and Fairness in University - Industry Collaboration.” Technovation 134:103049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103049. Cohen, N., and N. Eyal. 2021. “Skills Mismatch and the Migration Paradox of Israeli Life Scientists.” Population Space and Place 27 (5): e2453. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2453. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 21 ★Conradie, P. D., C. Vandevelde, J. De Ville, and J. Saldien. 2016. “Prototyping Tangible User Interfaces: Case Study of the Collaboration Between Academia and Industry.” International Journal of Engineering Education 32 (2): 726–737. https://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol32-2A/12_ijee3216ns.pdf. ★Cruz, G., C. Dominguez, et al. 2016. “How Can We Prepare Future Engineers to the Labour Market? A University- Business Cooperation Project Using Context and Problem-Based Learning Approaches.” In In Proceedings of the PAEE/ALE ‘2016, 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education (PAEE) and 14th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE), edited by R. M. Lima, E. de Graff, A. C. Alves, A. Menezes, D. Mesquita, J. Dinis-Carvalho, and L. Bettaleb, 639–644. Minho: Universidade do Minho. Cukier, W. 2019. “Disruptive Processes and Skills Mismatches in the New Economy: Theorizing Social Inclusion and Innovation as Solutions.” Journal of Global Responsibility 10 (3): 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-11-2018-0079. Demola. n.d. “International Project Studies: Unlock Your Career Potential.” Demola. Accessed February 13, 2024. https:// www.demola.net/ De Schepper, A., N. Clycq, and E. Kyndt. 2023. “Social Networks in the Transition from Higher Education to Work: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 40:100551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100551. Deters, J. R., M. C. Paretti, and R. Ott. 2020. “Engineering Graduates Perceived Preparedness for the First Three-Months of Work in Industry.” In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–5. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. https://doi.org/10. 1109/FIE44824.2020.9274013. ★Dieck-Assad, G., A. Ávila-Ortega, and O. I. G. Peña. 2021. “Comparing Competency Assessment in Electronics Engineering Education with and Without Industry Training Partner by Challenge-Based Learning Oriented to Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainability 13 (19): 10721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910721. Do, H.-D., K.-T. Tsai, J.-M. Wen, and S. K. Huang. 2023. “Hard Skill Gap Between University Education and the Robotic Industry.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 63 (1): 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2021.2023336. El Hadidi, H. H., and D. A. Kirby. 2017. “University–Industry Collaboration in a Factor-Driven Economy: The Perspective of Egyptian Industry.” Industry and Higher Education 31 (3): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422217705243. ★Falcone, F., P. Sanchis, A. Lopez-Martin, and A. Alejos. 2014. “The Role of University-Industry Liaisons to Enhance Engineering Curricular Development.” In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 1–4. Madrid, Spain: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044412. Fernandes, G., J. M. R. C. A. Santos, P. Ribeiro, L. M. D. F. Ferreira, D. O’Sullivan, D. Barroso, and E. B. Pinto. 2023. “Critical Success Factors of University R&D Collaborations.” Procedia Computer Science 219: 1650–1659. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.procs.2023.01.458. Figueiredo, H., R. Biscaia, V. Rocha, and P. Teixera. 2017. “Should We Start Worrying? Mass Higher Education, Skill Demand and the Increasingly Complex Landscape of Young Graduates’ Employment.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (8): 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1101754. Ford, J., M. Paretti, D. Kotys-Schwartz, S. Howe, C. Gewirtz, J. Deters, T. M. Chowdhury, et al. 2019. “Transitioning from Capstone Design Courses to Workplaces: A Study of New Engineers’ First Three Months.” International Journal of Engineering Education 35 (6B): 1993–2013. https://www.ijee.ie/1atestissues/Vol35-6B/10_ijee3843.pdf. ★Fortuin, K. P. J., J. T. M. Gulikers, N. C. Post Uiterweer, C. Oonk, and C. W. S. Tho. 2023. “Developing a Boundary Crossing Learning Trajectory: Supporting Engineering Students to Collaborate and Co-Create Across Disciplinary, Cultural and Professional Practices.” European Journal of Engineering Education 49 (2): 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797. 2023.2219234. ★Friesel, A. 2019. “University-Industry Cooperation to Empower Graduates’ Preparedness for Their Future Jobs.” In 29th Annual Conference of the European Association for Education in Electrical and Information Engineering (EAEEIE), 1–4. Ruse, Bulgaria: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EAEEIE46886.2019.9000434. Fu, X., X. M. Fu, P. Ghauri, and J. Hou. 2022. “International Collaboration and Innovation: Evidence from a Leading Chinese Multinational Enterprise.” Journal of World Business 57 (4): 101329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022. 101329. García-Aracil, A., S. Monteiro, and L. S. Almeida. 2018. “Students’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness for Transition to Work After Graduation.” Active Learning in Higher Education 22 (1): 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469787418791026. Garcia, R., V. Araújo, S. Mascarini, E. G. Santos, and A. R. Costa. 2019. “How Long-Term University-Industry Collaboration Shapes the Academic Productivity of Research Groups.” Innovation 22 (1): 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338. 2019.1632711. Garousi, V., D. Pfahl, J. M. Fernandes, M. Felderer, M. V. Mäntylä, D. Shepherd, A. Arcuri, A. Coşkunçay, and B. Tekinerdogan. 2019. “Characterizing Industry-Academia Collaborations in Software Engineering: Evidence from 101 Projects.” Empirical Software Engineering 24: 2540–2602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09711-y. Gawrycka, M., J. Kujawska, and M. T. Tomczak. 2020. “Competencies of Graduates as Future Labour Market Participants – Preliminary Study.” Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja 33 (1): 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1331677X.2019.1631200. Grosemans, I., L. Coertjens, and E. Kyndt. 2017. “Exploring Learning and Fit in the Transition from Higher Education to the Labour Market: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 21: 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev. 2017.03.001. 22 A. VUORIAINEN ET AL. Gusenbauer, M., and N. R. Haddaway. 2020. “Which Academic Search Systems are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources.” Research Synthesis Methods 11 (2): 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378. Haddaway, N. R., A. M. Collins, D. Coughlin, and S. Kirk. 2015. “The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.” PLoS One 10 (9): e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/2Fjournal.pone. 0138237. Hains-Wesson, R., and K. Ji. 2020. “Students’ Perceptions of an Interdisciplinary Global Study Tour: Uncovering Inexplicit Employability Skills.” Higher Education Research & Development 39 (4): 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2019.1695752. Hong, Q. N., P. Pluye, S. Fàbregues, G. Bartlett, F. Boardman, M. Cargo, P. Dagenais, et al. 2018. “The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 for Information Professionals and Researchers.” Education for Information 34 (4): 285–291. https://content.iospress.com/articles/education-for-information/efi180221. Hovdhaugen, E. 2015. “Working While Studying: The Impact of Term-Time Employment on Dropout Rates.” Journal of Education and Work 28 (6): 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2013.869311. Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687. Husin, M. H., N. F. Ibrahim, N. A. Abdullah, S. M. Syed-Mohamad, N. H. Samsudin, and L. Tan. 2022. “The Impact of Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the Future of the Workforce: A Study on Malaysian IT Professionals.” Social Science Computer Review 41 (5): 1671–1690. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221117268. Jackson, D., and R. Bridgstock. 2021. “What Actually Works to Enhance Graduate Employability? The Relative Value of Curricular, Co-Curricular, and Extra-Curricular Learning and Paid Work.” Higher Education 81: 723–739. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-020-00570-x. ★Jiravansirikul, T., T. Dheandhanoo, and M. Chantamas. 2017. “University-Industry Collaboration for Game Curriculum: The Open Innovation Model.” In 9th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), 1–4. Phuket, Thailand: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.2017.8250501. ★Johanyak, Z. C. 2016. “Real-World Software Projects as Tools for the Improvement of Student Motivation and University-Industry Collaboration.” In 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA), 1–4. Jeju, South Korea: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMSA.2016.7504028. Johnston, A. 2021. “Open Innovation and the Formation of University-Industry Links in the Food Manufacturing and Technology Sector: Evidence from the UK.” European Journal of Innovation Management 24 (1): 89–107. https:// doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2019-0163. ★Juvane, M., P. Spiesberger, K. Pinter, R. Vallon, and T. Grechenig. 2020. “Assessing Mozambique’s Software Industry to Foster Local Universities-Industry Collaboration.” In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1740–1747. Porto, Portugal: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125330. Karaca-Atik, A., M. Meeuwisse, M. Gorgievski, and G. Smeets. 2023. “Uncovering Important 21st-Century Skills for Sustainable Career Development of Social Sciences Graduates: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 39:100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100528. Kauppila, O., A. Mursula, J. Harkonen, and J. Kujala. 2015. “Evaluating University–Industry Collaboration: The European Foundation of Quality Management Excellence Model-Based Evaluation of University–Industry Collaboration.” Tertiary Education and Management 21 (3): 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1045550. ★Kauppila, O., J. Majava, and H. Kropsu-Vehkaperä. 2016. “Evaluation of University-Business Cooperation: Case Examples from Industrial Engineering and Management Education.” In 44th SEFI Conference, 1–8. Tampere, Finland: SEFI. http://sefibenvwh.cluster023.hosting.ovh.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/kauppila-evaluation-of- university-business-cooperation-76_a.pdf. Kunttu, L., Y. Neuvo, and S. Tikkanen. 2022. “Increasing Doctors’ Employment in Companies by Tailored Teaching and Matchmaking Actions.” In ISPIM Conference Proceedings, 1–7. Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta University of Technology, The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). https://osuva.uwasa.fi/handle/10024/15018. ★Lahdenperä, J., J. Jussila, A.-M. Järvenpää, and L. Postareff. 2022. “Design Factory – Supporting Technology Students’ Learning of General Competences Through University-Industry Collaboration.” LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education 10 (1): 127–150. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1672. Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33 (1): 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310. Lauder, H., and K. Mayhew. 2020. “Higher Education and the Labour Market: An Introduction.” Oxford Review of Education 46 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2019.1699714. ★Lautala, P. T. 2013. “What the Railroad Industry Needs and Expects from Higher Education: Meeting the Needs.” Transportation Research Record 2328 (1): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.3141/2328-05. Mahadevan, J. 2014. “Intercultural Engineering Beyond Stereotypes.” European Journal of Training and Development 38 (7): 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-10-2013-0107. Marijan, D., and A. Gotlieb. 2020. “Lessons Learned on Research Co-Creation: “Making Industry-Academia Collaboration Work.”” In 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), Portoroz, Slovenia. 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA51224.2020.00053 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 23