Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How does working on university–industry collaborative projects affect science and engineering doctorates’ careers? Evidence from a UK research-based university

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 07 June 2014

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of industrial involvement in doctoral projects on the particular nature of the training and careers of doctorates. We draw on an original survey of job histories of doctorates in physical sciences and engineering from a research-based university in the UK. Using multivariate probit analysis and linearised (robust) and resampling (jackknife) variance estimation techniques, we found that projects with industrial involvement are associated with higher degree of socialisation with industry. There is some evidence showing that these projects are also more likely to focus on solving firm-specific technical problems or developing firm-specific specifications/prototypes, rather than exploring high-risk concepts or generating knowledge in the subject areas. Crucially, these projects result in fewer journal publications. Not surprisingly, in line with existing literature, we found that engaging in projects with industrial involvement (in contrast to projects without industrial involvement) confers advantages on careers in the private sector. Nevertheless, there is also a hint that engaging in projects with industrial involvement may have a negative effect on careers in academia or public research organisations. While acknowledging that the modelling results are based on a small sample from a research-based university and that therefore the results need to be treated with caution, we address implications for doctorates, universities and policymakers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The allocation of UK higher education core funding is based on the number of students and the performance of the competition based Research Excellence Framework (REF), which was first introduced in 1985. Details of how the impact beyond academia will be assessed in the 2014 REF are outlined in the REF website: http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/researchusers/REF%20guide.pdf.

  2. The Dearing Committee was appointed by the government to make recommendations on how the purposes, shape, structure, size and funding of higher education should develop to meet the needs of the United Kingdom for the next 20 years (HMSO 1997).

  3. Data from The University of Manchester Facts and Figures 2009; on-line available at: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/aboutus/facts_figures.pdf.

  4. PhDs graduated between 1998 and 2001 from the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences were surveyed. Subject areas include chemical engineering and analytical science, chemistry, computer science, earth, atmospheric and environmental sciences, electrical and electronic engineering, materials, mathematics, mechanical, aerospace and civil engineering and physics and astronomy.

  5. Details in Lee et al. (2010).

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Ferretti, M., & Parmentola, A. (2012). An individual-level assessment of the relationship between spin-off activities and research performance in universities. R&D Management, 42(3), 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J., & Katz, R. (1986). The dual ladder: Motivational solution or managerial delusion? R&D Management, 16(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J., & Katz, R. (1992). Age, education and the technical ladder. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T., Mäkelä, K., Brikinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschhoff, B., & Grimpe, C. (2014). Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology. Research Policy, 43, 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, K. R. W., Fenton, B., Griffiths, H., & Pal, B. C. (2012). Attracting graduates to power engineering in the UK: Successful university and industry collaboration. IEEE Transactions in Power Systems, 27(1), 450–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E., Anderson, M., Causino, N., & Seashore-Louis, K. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2013). Academic faculty in university research centres: Neither capaitalism’s capitalism’s slave nor teaching fugitives. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 88–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness & impact on the decision to patent in the academic word. Research Policy, 36, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29, 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. The Stata Journal, 3, 278–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science–industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32, 887–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. C., & Yang, P. Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: A test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Management, 38(3), 321–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M. H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38, 936–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper 7552.

  • Dany, F., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Beyond the dualism between lifelong employment and job insecurity: Some new career promises for young scientists. Higher Education Policy, 17, 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DTZ Pieda Consulting. (2003). A study of the career paths of PPARC PhD students. http://www.so.stfc.ac.uk/publications/pdf/PiedaNewCohort.pdf (Accessed May 17, 2009).

  • Estabrooks, C. A., Norton, P., Birdsell, J. M., Newton, M. S., Adewale, A. J., & Thornley, R. (2008). Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and mode II activity among health researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1066–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Krabel, S. (2012). Ready to leave the ivory tower? Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giret, J., & Recotillet, I. (2004). The impact of CIFRE programme into early careers of PhD graduates in France. In Paper presented to the 16th annual conference of the European Association of Labour Economics, Lisbon.

  • Gluck, M. E., Blumenthal, D., & Stoto, M. A. (1987). University–industry relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy, 16, 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K., & Grimpe, C. (2012). Are all academic entrepreneurs created alike? Evidence from Germany. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(3), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 637–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. (2005). Industry funding and university professor’s research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, G., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life science in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance: Towards mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 747–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HMSO. (1993). Realising our potential: A strategy for science, engineering and technology. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • HMSO. (1997). The national committee into higher education: Higher education in the learning society: Main report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, W., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). For money or glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M. (1987). The ethical dilemmas of university–industry collaborations. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2007). Knowledge networks and careers: Academic scientists in industry–university links. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 993–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs then others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35, 1599–1615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39, 1387–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20, 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2004). Public sector research: A growing role in innovation systems. Minerva, 42, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton Smith, H. (2006). Universities, innovation and the economy. Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H.-F., Miozzo, M., & Laredo, P. (2010). Career patterns and competences of PhDs in science and engineering in the knowledge economy: The case of graduates from a UK research-based university. Research Policy, 39(7), 869–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. A., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life science faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mallon, M., Duberly, J., & Cohen, L. (2005). Careers in public sector science: Orientations and implications. R&D Management, 35(4), 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29, 741–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin, V. (2001). Individual careers and collective research: Is there a paradox? International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7/8), 670–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, D. (1999). Labour market performance of French PhDs: A statistical analysis. In OECD (Ed.), Mobilising human resources for innovation. Paris.

  • Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedergassel, B., & Leker, J. (2011). Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university scientists. Technovation, 31, 142–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholars: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37, 1884–1891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality and the future of biotech. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, S., & Cahuzac, E. (2003). Knocking on academia’s doors: An inquiry into the early careers of doctors in life science. Labour, 17(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1999). Interaction of universities and industrial enterprises in Germany and the United States: A comparison. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S. (2012). Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 508–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoke, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thune, T. (2010). The training of “triple helix workers”? Doctoral students in university–industry–government collaborations. Minerva, 48, 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treasury, H. M. (2004). Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014. London: HMSO.

    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-effects? Research Policy, 33, 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J., Cohen, W. M., & Cho, C. (2007). Where excludability matters: Materials versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy, 36, 1184–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support from the UK Economic and Social Research Council is acknowledged by Hsing-fen Lee (PTA-031-2006-00346) and Marcela Miozzo (RES-189-25-0227).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Management and Innovation, Middlesex University Business School, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, London, NW4 4BT, UK

    Hsing-fen Lee

  2. Manchester Business School, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

    Marcela Miozzo

Authors
  1. Hsing-fen Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcela Miozzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsing-fen Lee.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Definition of a job

  • Include any job (including self-employment), full-time or part-time, which you did for at least 6 months (or which you expect to last for at least 6 months).

  • Don’t count jobs or work experience that you did while registered as a full-time PhD student.

  • If you changed the kind of work you did, rank or job title while working for the same employer, count it as a change of job.

  • If you have worked in a Government Department, school or hospital, count any move from one Government Department, school or hospital to another, as a change of job.

  • Contract researchers in academic institutions or other employment on short-term contracts: if your contract was renewed count this as an extension of the same job.

  • If you had a period of “temping”, free-lancing, consultancy or self-employed contract work, count the whole period as one job.

  • If you went on maternity leave or sick leave and went back to the same employer for the same kind of work, rank and job title, count the whole period as one job.

Appendix 2

See Table 5.

Table 5 The correlation matrix for the data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Hf., Miozzo, M. How does working on university–industry collaborative projects affect science and engineering doctorates’ careers? Evidence from a UK research-based university. J Technol Transf 40, 293–317 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9340-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9340-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation