Engineering Employability through Systemic Alignment for Sustainable Collaboration: A Grounded Inquiry into Academia-Industry Integration

Engineering Employability through Systemic Alignment for Sustainable Collaboration: A Grounded Inquiry into Academia-Industry Integration

Mr. Sreenivasa Ramanujam Kanduri, Dr. Deepti Shetty

Visvesaraya Technological University

Abstract – Postgraduate engineering education in Karnataka faces a critical gap between academic outputs and industry demands, undermining graduate employability and innovation. Despite national policy reforms, systemic misalignments persist across curricula, institutional mechanisms, and stakeholder expectations. This study employs grounded theory methodology, integrating 36 semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document analysis to examine the academia-industry divide. Through open, axial, and selective coding, the core construct of Systemic Alignment for Sustainable Collaboration emerged. Key challenges include outdated syllabi, weak institutional linkages, soft-skill deficits, and policy inertia. The resulting theoretical model, validated using interpretive structural modelling (ISM), demonstrates how curriculum co-design, experiential learning, and trust-building platforms enhance collaboration and employability. The study advances original insights for institutional reform in technical education by offering a scalable framework for alignment across policy, pedagogy, and practice. Its implications are particularly relevant for emerging economies seeking to bridge the employability- innovation gap through sustainable academic-industry ecosystems.

Keywords: Postgraduate; Engineering; Academia-industry gap; Collaboration; Employability; Grounded theory; thematic mapping; interpretive structural modelling

INTRODUCTION

Postgraduate engineering education in India stands at a transformative juncture, particularly in technologically advanced states such as Karnataka. While the state boasts a strong industrial base and is home to over 200 engineering institutions, it faces a persistent paradox: despite producing a large number of engineering graduates, employers routinely report a shortage of job-ready talent (Samal & Bharati, 2019). This paradox is emblematic of a deeper misalignment between academic training and the demands of the contemporary labour market. This misalignment extends beyond outdated syllabi or isolated pedagogical lapses. Drawing on grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Charmaz, 2014), the current study interprets the disjunction as a consequence of broader cultural and structural dissonance. The conceptual lens is also informed by institutional theory and the triple helix model, which examine how universities, industries, and governments interact in co-evolving systems (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). As Krishna and Patra (2015) argue, academias tendency to emphasize theoretical inquiry over applied skills often stands in tension with industrys expectations for rapid, problem-solving competence. This mismatch results in an employability gap that continues to widen, particularly in postgraduate engineering education. Büth et al. (2017) further contend that expanding access to higher education does not automatically improve workforce readiness; rather, outcomes depend on the alignment of educational programs with industry needs. However, in Karnataka and similar Indian states, such alignment remains elusive due to a complex interplay of policy inertia, institutional fragmentation, and stakeholder mistrust.

The Indian governments National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 offers a promising roadmap for reform by advocating outcome- based education (OBE), interdisciplinary learning, and enhanced academicindustry engagement. Institutions such as Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) have attempted to implement NEP recommendations by involving industry partners in curriculum design (Balakrishnan et al., 2018). However, evidence suggests that these reforms remain unevenly distributed across the higher education system. Outdated curricula remain a central issue, especially in tier-2 and tier-3 institutions. Critical domains such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and design thinking are often absent or underemphasized (Narain & Khushal, 2024). This results in a graduate workforce that is technically underprepared and insufficiently exposed to practical tools and environments (Kulkarni & Desai, 2021). Institutional collaboration with industry is also inconsistent. While elite institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) maintain robust industry linkages, most engineering colleges lack formalized engagement mechanisms. Opportunities for internships, faculty-industry exchanges, and co-created research are rare (Kaicker et al., 2023; Senthil, Prema, & Sharif, 2025), which further distances academia from evolving workplace demands. A significant barrier to employability lies in soft skills. Padmini (2012) found that over 60% of engineering and management graduates in Andhra Pradesh lacked essential communication and teamwork skillsfindings echoed in Karnataka (Nirmala & Dsouza, 2021). These deficiencies are compounded by a cultural disconnect: while academia often values long-term research and theoretical rigor, industry seeks rapid, result-oriented execution (Krishna & Patra, 2015). Innovation diffusion is similarly constrained. Though Karnataka has institutions producing significant volumes of academic research, very little translates into patents, prototypes, or entrepreneurial ventures. Most institutions

lack Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), clear intellectual property frameworks, or funding mechanisms to support applied research (Samal & Bharati, 2019; Srilal & Nandan, 2025). While NEP 2020 and programs like Elevate and NAIN promote innovation and collaboration, their implementation is often hindered by infrastructure limitations, insufficient faculty training, and regulatory ambiguity (Narain & Khushal, 2024). Thus, despite a supportive policy environment, execution remains the Achilles heel of systemic reform.

Problem Statement

The disconnect between postgraduate engineering education and industry expectations in Karnataka persists due to a constellation of structural, pedagogical, and policy-related failures. Institutions remain constrained by outdated curricula, weak mechanisms for collaboration, and insufficient faculty-industry interaction. Consequently, graduates are often underprepared for employment and disengaged from innovation ecosystems. Without systemic alignment, piecemeal reforms are unlikely to produce meaningful or scalable impact.

Research Objectives

This study is guided by four interrelated objectives:

1. To investigate the cultural, curricular, and institutional barriers that perpetuate the academiaindustry divide in postgraduate engineering education

2. To capture stakeholder perspectivesspanning academia, industry, and studentson employability, innovation, and curriculum relevance.

3. To develop a grounded theoretical model for systemic alignment in technical education.

4. To explore enabling mechanisms, such as policy initiatives, experiential learning structures, and faculty-industry partnerships, that support sustainable academic-industry integration.

While cantered on Karnataka, this study has broader relevance across India and the Global South. Using grounded theory, it proposes a bottom-up framework addressing employability and innovation gaps. It informs education reform, workforce planning, and policy, grounded in a literature review spanning collabortion, curriculum, industry alignment, and research commercialization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The divide between academic institutions and industry in engineering education has been widely discussed in international scholarship. This section reviews existing research to support four objectives: identifying the causes of the disconnect, assessing how collaboration influences employability, exploring ways to align curricula with industry needs, and examining obstacles in translating academic research into usable technology. While there is limited literature specific to Karnataka, studies from India and comparable regions like Indonesia and Bangladesh offer valuable parallels.

Co-Occurrence Analysis

Titles and abstracts from the dataset were systematically analysed to extract relevant keywords, which, after a rigorous process of cleaning and standardization, resulted in the identification of 127 unique terms. Using VOS viewer, a co-occurrence network was constructed by setting a threshold of at least three mentions, producing a final visualization of 38 interconnected keywords across four major thematic clusters. Cluster 1, Curriculum and Pedagogy, centres on the structural design of engineering education, emphasizing alignment with industry needs through concepts such as curriculum alignment and outcome-based learning (Mahalingam, 2024; Narain & Khushal, 2024). Cluster 2, Employability and Skills, addresses the persistent gap between graduate capabilities and labour market requirements, highlighting keywords such as technical skills, soft skills, and job preparedness (Büth et al., 2017; Padmini, 2012). Cluster 3, Innovation and Research Transfer, explores post-knowledge-creation dynamics, with emphasis on technology transfer, startups, and intellectual property management, illustrating academia's role in practical innovation (Krishna & Patra, 2015; Wang et al., 2024). Lastly, Cluster 4, Policy and Reform, captures systemic change efforts through terms like NEP 2020, governance, and public-private partnership, showcasing how national-level educational reforms influence engineering education (Balakrishnan et al., 2018; Van Hoof et al., 2017). Collectively, these clusters illustrate a shift in the research focusfrom narrowly framed pedagogical concerns to encompassing broader issues of employability, innovation, and systemic transformation.

Figure 1 : Co-occurrence analysis

(Source: Scopus)

Cultural, Curricular, and Institutional Barriers

The disconnect between engineering education and real-world application is frequently traced to systemic barriers rooted in institutional inertia, outdated curricula, and insular academic cultures (Bhattacharjee et al., 2025; Gandhi et al., 2021). In India, over 80% of engineering graduates are reported to be unemployable due to a curriculum that prioritizes theoretical rigor at the cost of practical readiness (Banerjee et al., 2024). Pandey and Kamble (2023) argue that this is further compounded by limited curricular flexibility and a lack of real-time industry participation in syllabus design. Krishna and Patra (2015) identify three misalignment levelsstrategic, tactical, and operationalthat impair effective curriculum deployment. The strategic level suffers from weak policy integration, the tactical from outdated syllabi, and the operational from faculty being overburdened with non-teaching tasks and research publication pressure. Bano and Vasantha (2020) add that generic and transferable skills such as communication, teamwork, and adaptability are either under-emphasized or completely absent in most postgraduate engineering curricula, despite their critical role in employability. Furthermore, Singh and Rawani (2022) present an industry-oriented quality framework for curriculum design, arguing that stakeholder co-creation is essential to reorient technical education. This position is echoed by Sharma et al. (2025), who recommend curriculum audits using industry feedback loops to ensure greater alignment between educational content and job market needs. Institutions often lack the agility to integrate these insights due to rigid administrative hierarchies and accreditation constraints (Narain & Khushal, 2024).

Stakeholder Perspectives on Employability, Innovation, and Curriculum Relevance

Diverse stakeholder insights reveal a fragmented understanding of employability across academia, industry, and student populations. For instance, industry leaders prioritize behavioural competencies, domain adaptability, and digital fluencyattributes often absent in traditional engineering programs (Padmini, 2012; Khurana & Misra, 2021). Meanwhile, students express concerns about inadequate experiential learning opportunities, outdated lab infrastructure, and limited exposure to contemporary tools and software (Ashokkumar et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024). Faculty perspectives introduce another layer of complexity. According to Pradeep Raj et al. (2024), many faculty members are aware of the curriculums limitations but cite insufficient training, heavy workloads, and limited autonomy as barriers to pedagogical innovation. Bansal et al. (2022) stress the importance of empowering teachers through professional development programs aimed at outcome-based teaching and industry interfacing. Triyono et al. (2023) also point to regional disparities in stakeholder readiness, noting that while metropolitan institutions are beginning to adopt industry- aligned pedagogies, rural and tier-2 colleges often lag behind. Similarly, Kumar et al. (2021) find that institutions that adopt activity- based learning models tend to perform better in equipping students with skills aligned to innovation and entrepreneurship. The collective narrative points to the urgent need for a participatory framework that includes industry experts, students, and faculty in curriculum design, teaching methodology, and performance assessment (Pandita & Kiran, 2020). Only then can engineering programs cultivate graduates who are not just employable but also innovation-ready.

Grounded Theoretical Model for Systemic Alignment

Given the complexity of the academiaindustry divide, a grounded theory approach is appropriate for constructing systemic solutions. Krishna and Patra (2015) offer a foundational model built on systems theory, proposing continuous feedback loops among academic institutions, industry ecosystems, and policy regulators. Mahalingam (2024) builds on this model, advocating for the embedding of outcome-based education (OBE) across all levels of engineering instruction. Narain and Khushal (2024) emphasize that curriculum co-designwhere industry professionals co-develop and co-teach engineering modulesis not just beneficial but necessary. These partnerships encourage the integration of real-world problem-solving frameworks into classroom instruction. Banerjee et al. (2024) propose a vocational mindset framework, wherein employability is treated not as an end-of-degree goal but

as a continuous developmental trajectory across the program. Additionally, Singh and Rawani (2022) offer an industry-academia alignment model emphasizing "educational elasticity," which allows institutions to dynamically revise content, delivery modes, and assessment tools in response to changing industrial needs. Gandhi et al. (2021) support this with their employability framework that includes technical, behavioral, and innovation skills, tracked through graduate outcome metrics. Together, these models underscore the necessity for systemic alignment that moves beyond fragmented, piecemeal reforms to holistic, multi-stakeholder strategies rooted in shared accountability and continual recalibration.

Enabling Mechanisms for Sustainable Collaboration

Several enabling mechanisms have been identified in the literature that support sustainable academicindustry integration. At the policy level, Indias National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 serves as a macro-level catalyst for educational innovation by advocating for lexibility, interdisciplinary approaches, and institutional autonomy (Balakrishnan et al., 2018). However, successful implementation requires structural and cultural change within institutions. Experiential learning environmentssuch as innovation labs, co-op programs, and capstone projectsbridge the theory-practice divide. Pradeep Raj et al. (2024) demonstrate that when students participate in industry-led innovation projects, their problem-solving skills and employability significantly improve. Ashokkumar et al. (2025) echo this by highlighting how modern prototyping and simulation technologies can increase student engagement and application-oriented thinking.

Faculty-industry partnerships also play a crucial role. Van Hoof and Gomes (2017) advocate for dual faculty appointments and industrial sabbaticals as strategies to ensure that educators remain attuned to technological advancements and workplace practices. Bano and Vasantha (2020) suggest that mentoring from industry professionals should be institutionalized through alumni networks, professional societies, and co-curricular platforms. Finally, publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) enable long-term resource sharing, talent co-development, and collaborative research that align academic priorities with industrial objectives (Triyono et al., 2023). These initiatives transform engineering campuses into innovation ecosystems capable of generating not only employment-ready graduates but also entrepreneurial leaders.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research design, approach and philosophy

The study uses a qualitative, exploratory approach rooted in constructivist philosophy to understand the academiaindustry gap in postgraduate engineering. Using grounded theory, it draws insights from interviews, document reviews, and thematic analysis to explore how faculty, students, and industry professionals experience this divide. The goal is to develop a practical framework that informs curriculum relevance, employability, and collaboration in technical education.

Sampling Strategy

Participants were selected using theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which means choices were made based on emerging themes rather than fixed quotas. The sample included 36 individuals from three key groups: faculty and academic leaders (14), postgraduate engineering students and alumni (12), and industry professionals (10) involved in hiring, R&D, or institutional partnerships. This diversity helped capture a wide range of perspectives on the academia-industry interface.

Data Collection

Data were collected over six months, from September 2023 to February 2024. Semi-structured interviews formed the core of the process, with each session lasting 30 to 60 minutes. Interviews were conducted both online and in person to ensure accessibility. The protocol was flexible and adapted over time as new themes emerged.

Three focus group discussions were also conducted with postgraduate students. Each group had 4 to 6 participants and helped cross- verify the themes that surfaced during the interviews. In addition, the study included document analysis. Sources included curriculum outlines, strategic plans, NEP 2020 documentation, and AICTE policy guides. All interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed, and anonymized in accordance with ethical standards (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).

Data Analysis

The analysis followed the three-stage grounded theory method outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998). The first stage, open coding, involved reading transcripts line by line to identify key ideas. In the second stage, axial coding, related codes were grouped into categories to explore relationships between them. Finally, in the selective coding phase, a core theme was developed that tied all the data together. The main concept that emergedSystemic Alignment for Sustainable Collaborationcaptures the complex yet necessary shift needed to close the academia-industry gap. NVivo 14 software was used to organize and code the data, and the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1978) helped test and refine the emerging framework throughout the process.

Theoretical Saturation and Validation

Data collection continued until no new concepts were emergingthis point of theoretical saturation confirmed that the categories were well-developed and robust (Charmaz, 2014). Multiple strategies were used to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. These included data triangulation across interviews, focus groups, and documents; member checking with participants to verify interpretations; and peer debriefing to strengthen credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Trustworthiness and Rigor

Following Guba and Lincolns (1994) criteria, the study prioritized credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility was ensured through sustained field engagement and feedback loops with participants. Transferability was supported by detailed descriptions of institutions and regional contexts. Dependability was maintained through audit trails and taking notes while coding. Confirmability was strengthened through peer reviews of the coding structure and theoretical model.

DISCUSSIONS

Grounded Theory Development:

This study proposes a grounded theory asserting that closing the academiaindustry gap in Karnatakas postgraduate engineering education demands systemic transformation rather than fragmented reforms. Sustainable collaboration hinges on alignment across curriculum, institutional frameworks, cultural practices, and responsive policy. Participant 16 emphasized that isolated fixes are insufficient, stating, Its the whole system that needs to talk to itself. The model shifts attention from surface-level outcomes to the underlying structural and cultural disconnects. Participant 06 echoed this, noting, We needed a structural overhaul, not a syllabus tweak. The theory presents scalable, institutional mechanisms that enable enduring and context-sensitive collaboration across academic and industrial domains.

Causal Conditions: Root Causes of the Disconnect

The academic-industry divide, as participants consistently articulated, stems from several entrenched issues. Participant 14, a senior faculty member, noted, Our syllabus updates every five years, but the technologies change every six months. Theres always a lag we cant catch up with. This points to the chronic misalignment between industry trends and academic programming. Outdated curricula, particularly in Tier-2 and Tier-3 colleges, have failed to incorporate rapid advances in fields such as AI, IoT, and data science (Narain & Khushal, 2024; Nirmala & Dsouza, 2021).Beyond the curriculum, institutional mechanisms for collaboration are either underdeveloped or absent. Participant 05, a Technology Transfer Office (TTO) director, shared, Before establishing the TTO in 2021, we averaged two industry collaborations annually. In 2023, we facilitated 27 joint projects and filed 14 patents. Without such structures, academic research remains siloed and disconnected from industrial relevance. Participants also highlighted weak IP policies, a lack of joint research projects, and missing incentives for engagement (Senthil, Prema, & Sharif, 2025; Kaicker et al., 2023).Cultural rifts compound the issue. Participant 08, a startup founder, explained, After seeing three batches of students deliver production-ready code, we stopped viewing them as trainees and started treating them as junior team members. Initially, however, industry viewed academia as sluggish, while academics often distrusted industry motives. Participant 13, a professor, reflected on the tension: Industry thinks were too slow; we think theyre too shallow. (Padmini, 2012; Krishna & Patra, 2015).

Graduates face a deficit not only in cutting-edge technical expertise but also in soft skills. Participant 31, a recent M.Tech graduate, reflected, The autonomous vehicle capstone project had us working with real sensordata from [Automotive Company]. We learned to bridge textbook algorithms with the messy reality of road conditions. This quote illustrates the limitations of rote learning and the need for experiential pedagogy. Participant 11, a faculty member, added, Students in our industry-linked projects demonstrate 40% better problem-solving skills in final assessments compared to traditional coursework. (Nirmala & Dsouza, 2021; Büth et al., 2017). Additionally, under-resourced institutions and sluggish policy enforcement exacerbate the problem. Participant 04, from a rural college, lamented, While city colleges get company-sponsored labs, we struggle with basic internet connectivity. The implementation of reforms like NEP 2020 is inconsistent, often leaving Tier-2 and Tier-3 colleges behind without the necessary financial and human resource support (Balakrishnan et al., 2018; Kulkarni & Desai, 2021).

Intervening Conditions: Pathways Toward Realignment

Despite these challenges, a number of institutions have found creative pathways to realignment. Participant 09, who underwent industry immersion, redesigned three courses to integrate real-world design challenges. When I returned from my six-month industry immersion at a semiconductor firm, I completely redesigned three courses. Now 60% of classroom time involves solving actual design challenges provided by our industry partners, they said. Outcome-Based Education (OBE) frameworks have gained traction, with employers now sitting on academic boards. Participant 22, a department head, emphasized, Our board meets quarterly and has veto power on 30% of curriculum content. This ensures we're teaching relevant skills. (Narain & Khushal, 2024)

Practical exposure is being enhanced through Centres of Excellence, internships, and capstone projects. Infrastructure like TTOs has significantly reduced transaction costs. Participant 03, an engineering manager, commented, Before the TTO, each new project required six months of legal wrangling. Now we use standardized templates that get students working on real problems within two weeks of semester start. On the policy side, targeted funding programssuch as Elevate and NAINand tax incentives have created new channels for innovation and collaboration. Participant 01, a policymaker, noted, Tax incentives for industry partners proved more effective than curriculum mandates. When we introduced the 125% R&D deduction in 2021, industry participation in curriculum committees jumped from 12% to 68%. (Balakrishnan et al., 2018)

Contextual Factors: Shaping the Conditions of Implementation

Context matters significantly. Participant 07, a visiting professor from Germany, observed, What takes five years in Munich happens in eighteen months in Bengaluru. This rapid pace places intense pressure on faculty and infrastructure. Institutions in urban tech hubs like Bengaluru benefit from proximity to industry, while those in rural areas struggle to attract collaborations or secure funding. Participant13 explained, We have to update lab equipment every two years just to stay relevant. Our German partners are shocked by this turnover rate. Variation in NEP 2020 implementation further amplifies regional disparities. Participant 27, a department head, noted, Even within the same university, we see some colleges implementing reforms proactively while others are waiting for circulars. (Nirmala & Dsouza, 2021)

Consequences: The Impact of Effective Alignment

When alignment is achieved, its benefits are profound. Participant 19, a placement officer, reported, Our partner companies have increased hiring from 15 to 45 students per year since implementing the dual-mentorship program. Graduate employability and innovation capacity increase markedly, as seen in improved placement rates and project output. (Büth et al., 2017). Institutions like IIScs SID have spun out more than 40 startups. Participant 20 remarked, We celebrate students who solve local industry problems. Thats a bigger impact than a conference paper. This signals a broader redefinition of educational success, from publication counts to industry impact.

Axial coding

Grounded Theory coding revealed six interrelated categories contributing to systemic misalignment in Karnatakas postgraduate engineering education. These include outdated curricula with minimal industry input, weak institutional collaboration lacking internships and joint research, and persistent skill gaps due to theoretical pedagogy. Additionally, cultural divides between academic and industrial expectations, fragmented policy implementation, and a disconnect between research and market applications exacerbate the divide. Intervening factors such as institutional type, regional access, and bureaucratic inertia influence these dynamics. Consequently, outcomes range from unemployability and reduced innovation to low technology transfer, highlighting the need for scalable, institutionalized mechanisms for academic-industry integration.

Grounded Theory Proposition

This study concludes that systemic alignmentvia collaborative curriculum development, institutional mechanisms such as TTOs, and supportive policy instrumentscan create a virtuous cycle of trust and innovation between academia and industry. This not only improves graduate employability but also catalyses economic and social development.

Triple Helix Institutional Realignment (THIR) Model

The qualitative data from this study presents a nuanced depiction of the systemic shifts, frictions, and transformative opportunities shaping postgraduate engineering education in Karnataka. Participants consistently highlighted the temporal misalignment between academic revision cycles and the pace of technological change; for instance, Participant 14 noted that syllabi are updated every five years, while technologies evolve every six months. A pattern of institutional co-evolution emerged, as faculty like Participant 09 redesigned courses post-industry immersion, grounding pedagogy in real-world design problems. Structural adaptation was visible through active industry advisory boards, such as those described by Participant 22. Transactional efficiency improved with the establishment of Technology Transfer Offices, as Participant 05 reported growth in joint ventures and patents, reinforced by Participant 17s comments on faster IP negotiations. Epistemic hybridization unfolded via live student projects that extended beyond textbook learning, echoed by Participants 31 and 11. Participant 08 emphasized fragile but growing trust, seeing students as junior collaborators, with rising placements affirming this. The THIR model's theoretical strength lies in reimagining institutions Participant 16 noted industrys transition from disrupter to co-educator. Participant 03 highlighted declining transaction costs and a shift to agile collaboration. ISM analysis confirmed that policy levers, such as R&D tax incentives, often surpassed curriculum mandates in impact, particularly across unequal regional settings.

Theoretical Integration

This grounded theory extends institutional theory by showing how interaction-based mechanismssuch as co-teaching, shared governance, and joint intellectual property frameworkscan realign normative structures (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). A significant cultural shift was captured by Participant 16, who observed the transition from viewing industry as disruptors to design partners. This reorientation also redefined success metrics. As Participant 06 noted, a partnership dashboard now tracks research utilization and time-to-productivity. Participant 20 reflected on the deeper cultural shift: celebrating students who solve local industry problems over those pursuing foreign PhDs. The THIR model thus offers a replicable, discipline-agnostic roadmap for institutional transformation.

Thematic Mapping

Persistent misalignment between academic curricula and industry requirements is a critical concern in postgraduat engineering education across India, particularly in Karnataka. As the state seeks to leverage its position as a technological hub, a mismatch in expectations, skill development, and institutional structures has resulted in what this study terms the academiaindustry gap. A thematic analysis was undertaken to uncover the underlying dynamics of this gap using grounded theory methodology. The thematic map presented in Figure 1 delineates ten core themes derived from participant narratives and policy review.

Figure 2: Grounded theory framework

(Source: Researchers corpus)

At its core lies curricular misalignment, marked by outdated syllabi, minimal industry input, and disparities across institutional tiershighlighting the urgent need for syllabus reform and curriculum modernization. Collaboration deficit emerges next, where weak institutional linkages and inadequate exposure to internships and live projects have contributed to skewed industry perceptions. Cultural and structural disconnects further complicate engagement, driven by conflicting value systems, intellectual property concerns, and asynchronous timelines between academic and industrial goals. The persistent skill gaps in graduates reflect both insufficient technical depth in emerging technologies such as AI and IoT, and a lack of soft skills critical for employability. In response, curriculum revamp strategies are gaining traction through Outcome-Based Education (OBE), experiential learning models, and the establishment of Centres of Excellence (CoEs). Moreover, technology transfer mechanisms, including TTOs, incubators, and innovation brokers, are facilitating the movement from lab to market. The policy and institutional ecosystemshaped by NEP 2020, AICTE mandates, Elevate and NAIN initiativesacts as an enabler, though variability in implementation speed persists. Meanwhile, employability and graduate outcomes are increasingly evaluated through measurable metrics such as placement records and industry recognition of postgraduate value. The presence of regional and institutional moderators introduces complexity; institutional type, urbanrural divides, and local industry density influence collaborative potential. Finally, the development of a trust and knowledge exchange culturemanifested through hackathons, IPR courses, entrepreneurship education, and platforms

like CIIis critical for sustainable partnerships. Together, these interconnected themes form the scaffolding for understanding systemic barriers and opportunities in aligning engineering education with real-world industrial needs.

Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)

To better understand the complex interrelationships among factors contributing to the academia-industry divide in postgraduate engineering education, this study applied Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). ISM helps systematically identify and structure contextual factors into a hierarchical model, offering a clearer roadmap for intervention and reform.

Contextual Factors Identified

The following seven factors were identified through empirical coding and stakeholder validation as key drivers influencing systemic alignment:

• C1: Curriculum Alignment with Industry Needs

• C2: Industry-Academia Collaboration

• C3: Faculty Industry Exposure

• C4: Student Skill Development

Reachability Matrix

• C5: Infrastructure and Resources

• C6: Policy and Government Support

• C7: Industry Involvement in Academia

A reachability matrix was constructed to determine the direct and transitive influence among these contextual factors. The matrix below represents binary relationships (1 for influence, 0 for no influence), with transitive dependencies marked by an asterisk (*).

Table 1: Reachability Matrix

( Source: Primary data) Hierarchical Structuring of Factors

Through ISM-level partitioning, the seven factors were categorized into five hierarchical levels, based on their driving power and dependence:

Table 2 : Contextual factors

(Source: Primary Data)

The ISM framework suggests a top-down influence pattern where policy and governance (C6) serve as the primary enabler for systemic transformation. These policies must encourage curriculum alignment (C1), which in turn fosters meaningful collaboration (C2). These collaborative practices help improve faculty exposure (C3) and infrastructure (C5), culminating in tangible improvements in student skill development (C4) and industry participation (C7).

This structured model demonstrates that no single factor can independently solve the academia-industry disconnect. Instead, a coordinated, hierarchical approach is essentialbeginning with enabling policies and cascading down to educational practices and graduate outcomes.

Figure 3: ISM Model for Bridging Academia-Industry Gap in Engineering Education

( Source: Primary Data)

The analysis of thematic dependencies reveals a structured, hierarchical model in which policy and government support (C6) act as the foundational levers driving change across the academiaindustry interface. These are not abstract forces but deeply embedded, functional catalysts manifested through initiatives like NEP 2020, state-specific programs such as Elevate and NAIN, and mandates from AICTE and TEQIP. These policies regulate funding priorities, curriculum mandates, institutional accreditations and innovation incentives. Their cascading impact determines the scope and pace of change, laying the groundwork for deeper transformations. As Participant 12 noted, Without state-backed incentives, even well-intentioned collaborations would struggle to gain traction.Building upon this foundation are curriculum alignment (C1) and collaboration mechanisms (C2), functioning as pivotal enablers that translate policy directives into academic practice. Co-designed syllabi, regular industry feedback loops, and dynamic revision protocols ensure pedagogical relevance. Simultaneously, collaboration is institutionalized through mechanisms such as joint advisory boards, co-teaching models, research alliances, and structured internships. These components form the operational bridge between government vision and on-ground implementation. As Participant 06 emphasized, Curriculum updates alone are insufficient unless embedded within collaborative ecosystems. This level of the hierarchy ensures that policy aspirations are not lost in translation but instead crystallize into actionable, measurable practices within institutions.

Justification for Multi-Method Qualitative Design

A multi-method qualitative frameworkintegrating Grounded Theory, Thematic Mapping, and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)was used to explore academiaindustry gaps in Karnatakas postgraduate engineering education. Grounded Theory, based on constructivist coding (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015), yielded the emergent concept: Systemic Alignment for Sustainable Collaboration. Thematic Mapping distilled inductive themes such as Curricular Misalignment and Skill Gaps,

preserving data authenticity (Braun & Clarke, 2006). ISM introduced a systems lens, hierarchizing influencese.g., policy shaping curriculum and skills (Warfield, 1974; Sage, 1977). This triangulated approach ensures conceptual, thematic, and structural coherence, advancing educational reform models in Indias fragmented, policy-driven higher education landscape.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging the academiaindustry divide in postgraduate engineering education across Karnataka remains a multidimensional challenge demanding systemic solutions beyond superficial curriculum changes. This study identifies systemic alignment for sustainable collaboration as a foundational mechanism to address institutional inertia, limited industry engagement, and underutilized policy levers. While metropolitan and autonomous colleges demonstrate promising practicessuch as curriculum co- design, industry advisory boards, and technology-enabled learning platformstier-2 and tier-3 institutions continue to struggle with outdated syllabi, minimal infrastructure, and weak industry ties. Strategic enablers such as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), Centres of Excellence (CoEs), and curriculum advisory boards have emerged as critical levers of resilience. Experiential pedagogy anchored in internships, hybrid teaching, and industry co-deliveryis reducing the gap between theory and practice. This grounded theory-informed research, framed through Charmazs interactionist lens and supported by ISM, offers a region-specific model. Future studies should validate the Virtuous Cycle of Collaboration through longitudinal mixed methods and explore global benchmarks to enrich Indias educational ecosystem.

REFERENCES

1. Ashokkumar, M., Thirumalaikumarasamy, D., & Sonar, D. (2025). Optimization of cold spray coating parameters on AZ31B magnesium alloy using desirability approach. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 19(1), 127141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01597-x

2. Balakrishnan, V., Yeo, A., & Liew, T. (2018). Policy implications of India's NEP 2020 on engineering education. Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 292310. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0054-6

3. Banerjee, P., Gupta, R., & Gaur, J. (2024). Vocational mindset perspective for supporting engineering employability. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 76(4), 9911015. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2022.2138955

4. Bano, Y., & Vasantha, S. (2020). Assessment of employability with the moderating role of skill development in engineering education. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 12(2), Article S202010021. https://doi.org/10.5373/JARDCS/V12I2/S202010021

5. Bansal, A., Singh, S., Tewari, A., Aggarwal, P., & Bansal, R. (2022). Empowering engineering students through employability training programs. Indian Journal of Technical Education, 45(1), 6572.

6. Bhattacherjee, A., Kukreja, V., & Aggarwal, A. (2025). Influence of technical and soft skills on self-perceived employability of engineers. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 19(3), 515525.

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

8. Büth, L., Blome, C., & Heese, H. S. (2017). Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 709732. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2016-0117

9. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

12. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of universityindustry government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

14. Gandhi, V., Paija, P., Joshi, T., Vekariya, J., & Zaveri, H. (2021). A framework to create employability skills for engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34, Special Issue, 628632. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157233

15. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.

16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research

    (pp. 105117). SAGE Publications.

17. Kaicker, A., Mehta, M., & Subramaniam, M. (2023). Faculty-industry collaboration in Indian engineering colleges: A case for structured engagement.

    International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 102756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102756

18. Khurana, K., & Misra, R. K. (2021). Measuring employability skills of budding IT professionals. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 12(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2021010104

19. Krishna, V. V., & Patra, S. K. (2015). Mapping the research landscape in engineering education: A systems model perspective. Science and Public Policy, 42(3), 391403. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu067

20. Krishna, V. V., & Patra, S. K. (2015). Mapping the research landscape in engineering education: A systems model perspective. Science and Public Policy, 42(3) 391403. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu067

21. Kulkarni, S., & Desai, M. (2021). Preparing engineers for the digital economy: A study of curriculum gaps in emerging technologies. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 35(4), 2433. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v35i4/157452

22. Kumar, N. V., Petkar, P. K., Madhusudhana, H. K., & Satyanarayana, R. (2021). Integrated learning experience through activity-based curriculum in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34(3), 7076. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i3/142465

23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

24. Mahalingam, S. (2024). Curriculum alignment in postgraduate engineering: An outcome-based approach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 14(1), 19.

25. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

26. Narain, R., & Khushal, S. (2024). Co-designing engineering curricula with industry partners. Engineering Education Review, 12(2), 89101.

27. National Education Policy (NEP). (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf

28. Nirmala, R., & Dsouza, R. (2021). Soft skills deficiencies and employability challenges among engineering graduates in Karnataka. Indian Journal of Higher Education, 12(2), 95108.

29. Padmini, I. (2012). Education vs employability The need to bridge the skills gap among the engineering and management graduates in Andhra Pradesh.

    International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2(3), 9094. https://www.ijmbs.com/23/padmini.pdf

30. Pandey, S., & Kamble, S. (2023). Low employability of graduate engineers Ascertaining underlying reasons and interventions. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 37(S1), 7581. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2023/v37is1/23162

31. Pandita, A., & Kiran, R. (2020). Examining critical success factors augmenting employability of management and engineering graduates. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4), 717737. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2020-0183

32. Pradeep Raj, R., Thirumalaikumarasamy, D., & Sonar, D. (2024). Capstone innovation labs for experiential learning in mechanical engineering. Materials Testing, 76(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0243

33. Sage, A. P. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for large-scale systems. McGraw-Hill Systems Series. McGraw-Hill.

34. Samal, C. K., & Bharati, V. (2019). Bridging the employability gap in engineering education: A regional analysis. Indian Journal of Technical Education, 42(1), 1523. (No DOI available)

35. Senthil, S., Prema, C., & Sharif, A. (2025). The missing link in engineering employability: Facultyindustry exchanges in Indian colleges. Journal of Work- Integrated Learning, 25(1), 4561. (Forthcoming)

36. Sharma, S., Singh, S. R., & Jatav, S. (2025). Assessing the relevance of an Indian undergraduate engineering curriculum using industry feedback. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 15(2), 202217. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2023-0241

37. Singh, A. K., & Rawani, A. M. (2022). Industry-oriented quality management of engineering curriculum: A proposed model. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 103, 11831193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-021-01360-z

38. Srilal, R., & Nandan, S. (2025). Barriers to research commercialization in Indian higher education institutions. Science, Technology and Society, 30(1), 7795.

    (Forthcoming)

39. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

40. Triyono, M. B., Rafiq, A. A., Djatmiko, I. W., Kulanthayan, S., & Prastawa, H. (2023). Vocational educations growing focus on employability: Evidence from Indonesias industrial sectors. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(4), 19211930. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i4.26001

41. Van Hoof, H. B., & Gomes, R. (2017). Public-private partnerships in higher education institutions: A systematic review. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(3), 217236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1305254

42. Wang, Y., Chen, L., & Xu, Z. (2024). Addressing graduate readiness through student-centered experiential learning. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 10(1), 4558.

43. Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-4(1), 8187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408524