Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses three questions: First, what is the extent of research transfer in natural sciences and engineering among Canadian university researchers? Second, are there differences between various disciplines with regard to the extent of this transfer? And third, what are the determinants of research transfer? To answer these questions, the paper begins by differentiating between technology transfer and knowledge transfer. It then identifies the individual researcher as the unit of analysis of this study and introduces a conceptual framework derived from the resource-based approach of firms. The paper then reviews the literature on each of the factors included in the conceptual framework, beginning with the dependent variable, knowledge transfer. The conceptual framework includes four categories of resources and one category of research attributes that are likely to influence knowledge transfer. Based on a survey of 1,554 researchers funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), comparisons of means of research transfer across research fields were conducted. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify the determinants of research transfer by research field. The results of these analyses indicate that researchers transferred knowledge much more actively when no commercialization was involved than when there was commercialization of protected intellectual property. This paper thus adds to the relatively scarce evidence about knowledge transfer by examining knowledge transfer from a broader perspective than strict commercialization. The findings of this paper are also interesting for other reasons. We obtained statistical evidence indicating that researchers in certain research fields were much more active in knowledge transfer than those in other fields, thereby pointing to differences in levels of knowledge activities across research fields. Furthermore, we obtained evidence showing that only two determinants explained knowledge transfer in all the six research fields considered in this study, namely, focus of research projects on users’ needs, and linkages between researchers and research users. Statistical evidence obtained indicates that the other determinants that influence knowledge transfer vary from one research field to another, thus suggesting that different policies would be required to increase knowledge transfer in different research fields. The last part of the paper outlines the implications of the regression results for theory building, public policy and future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahire, S. L., & Devaray, S. (2001). An empirical comparison of statistical construct validation approaches. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(3), 319–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30, 1459–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of science matter? Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W. W., & Stuart, T. S. (2004). The Impact of Academic Patenting on (Public) Research Output. American Economic Association, Working paper

  • Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford University Press.

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process. A Conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, T. (1990) Researching policy research. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12(1), 80–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F., & Richard, F. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, N. (1979). The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory Level Evidence from Large European University. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E., (1997). The coming transformation in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky, & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

  • Cohen, L. R., & Noll, R. G. (1994). Privatizing public research. Scientific American, 271(3), 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declercq, G. V. (1981). A Third Look at the two cultures: The new economic responsability of the university. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 5, 117–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2005). University–Industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variaty of interactions with industry? DRUID Summer conference Jun 27–29, 2005 at Copenhagen Business School

  • Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. The Journal of Gerontology 41, 520–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1990). The second academic revolution: The role of the research university in economic development. In S. E. Cozzens et al. (Eds.), The Research system in transition (pp. 11–22). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. State University of New York Press: Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenk, J. (1992). Balancing relevance and excellence: Organizational response to link research with decision making. Social Science Medicine, 35(11), 1397–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusfeld, I. H. (1995). Industrial research—Where it’s been, where it’s going. Research Technology Management, 38, 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32, 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SOC Questionnaire. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas: Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G., Loucks, S., Rutherford, W., & Newlove, B. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangibles resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hameri, A. P. (1996). Technology transfer between basic research and industry. Technovation, 16, 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. G. (2001). The knowledge-based economy: Intellectual origins and new economic perspectives. International Journal of Management Review, 3, 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, H., More, E., & McGrath, M. (1998). Relationship management for innovation: The central role of communication in Australia’s participation in two hi-tech industries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). Extent and determinants of utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. K. (1982). Information utilization and non-utilization. American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences: Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. P. (1993). The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14(3), 267–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. P., & Wilds, L. J. (1990). The utilization of public policy analysis: A conceptual framework. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. (1997). Research and evidence-based decision making. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21(5), 439–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2005). ‘Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity’, Proceedings of the conference the fourth annual roundtable on engineering entrepreneurship research (REER), September 29th, Georgia Tech College of Management, Emory University

  • Link, A.N., & Scott, J.T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2002). A look at individual differences in scientific research productivity: An econometric analysis of the publications of the French CNRS physicists in condensed matter (1980–1997), Proceedings of the conference rethinking science policy: Analytical frameworks for evidence-based policy, March 21–23, SPRU, Brighton

  • Mandell, M. B., & Sauter, V. L. (1984). Approaches to the study of information utilization in public agencies. Journal of Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 6(2), 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markiewicz, K.R., & DiMinin, A. (2004). Commercializing the laboratory: The relationship between faculty patenting and publishing. Working Paper

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Acte, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (9th ed). McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, C. H., & Rich, R. F. (1996). Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowledge and Policy, 9, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A.L., & Liebeskind, J.P. (1998). Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implication for studying interorganizational networks. International Studies in Management and Organization, 27(4), 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandi, M. (1996). Health promotion technology transfer: Organizational perspectives. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 87(2), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U. S. and European university–industry relations in the Life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C., Horsley, J. A. (1981). Measuring utilization of nursing research. In Ciarlo, J. A. (Ed.), Utilizing evaluation (pp. 125–149). Ca Sage Publications: Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University Start-up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-based View of Academic Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J. & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnership. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, C. (2005). ‘Survey of intellectual property commercialization in the higher education sector, 2003’, Ottawa, Statistics Canada, Working Paper (88F0006XIE, 18)

  • Rich, R. F. (1991). Knowledge creation, dissemination, and utilization. The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 12(3), 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R. F. (1997). Measuring knowledge utilization process and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10(3), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2002). The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication, 23, 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer Offices at U.S. Research Universities. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12, 47–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.), New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1):27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverside, A. (1997). Dissemination of research results to clinicians an art in itself. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156(12), 1746–1747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. (2001). How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? A United States-Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, (Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm) 45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rule of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 70(2), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharon, G. L., & Stephan, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in the rewards to publishing in academe: science in the 70’s. SEX Roles, 38(11–12), 1049–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1997). The critical importance of careers in collaborative scientific research. Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 79, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Patterns of research and licensing activity of Science and Engineering Faculty. Technological innovation: Generating economic results, Working Paper

  • Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vall, M., & Bolas, C. (1982). Using social policy research for reducing social problems: an empirical analysis of structure and function. Journal of Applied Behavioral Scientist, 18, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, D. J. (1992). The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process. Knowledge and Policy, 4(4), 6–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 29, 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Y., & Lillard, L.A. (1982). Output variability, academic labor contracts, and waiting times for promotion. Research in Labor Economics, 5, 157–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R., & Moore, G. B. (1988). Lessons on the utilization of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazards field, knowledge in society. The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 1(3), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support for this project. The authors are also grateful for comments received from anonymous referees, from the participants at the 2005 DRUID Conference in Copenhagen, from Dominique Foray and participants at the seminar on Knowledge Transfer of the College of Management of Technology of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and from Elaine Gauthier, Barney Laciak and Susan Morris from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CHSRF/CIHR Chair on Knowledge Transfer and Innovation, Department of Management, Faculty of Business, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada, G1K 7P4

    Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Mathieu Ouimet

Authors
  1. Réjean Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nabil Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathieu Ouimet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Réjean Landry.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 7 Distribution of the population and the sample according to scientific fields
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 8 Correlations between explanatory variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Landry, R., Amara, N. & Ouimet, M. Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. J Technol Transfer 32, 561–592 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-0017-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-0017-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation