Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consideration of Knowledge and Technology Transfer Characteristics for Research Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Incentives and Performance

Abstract

Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) is currently becoming the third mission for the scientific community in addition to research and education. Therefore, there is a growing need to evaluate the impact of KTT, both directly and indirectly, on industry and society. However, despite the growing importance of KTT and the considerable amount of research that has already been conducted in this field, existing approaches to research evaluation primarily focus on quantitative determinants (e.g., number of publications, patents and licenses, number of collaboration projects with industry, or of companies founded) thereby neglecting transfer-oriented aspects of research evaluation. Therefore, in this article we investigate the characteristics of KTT, and to what extent they are taken into account by existing research evaluation approaches. Our results confirm that, up until now, KTT has been infrequently considered as an approach toward the evaluation of current research. Existing evaluation approaches focus on quantitative determinants, but to some extent they fail to realize that those determinants are not equally appropriate for evaluating KTT in different scientific disciplines or traditions. Based on our results, we call for more integrative and systematic research, building a foundation to meet the requirements of the growing importance of KTT in research evaluation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/de/bf/amm/produkte/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html

  2. 2.

    See www.transrapid.de and http://www.hochgeschwindigkeitszuege.com/deutschland/transrapid.php

References

  • Alkin MC (2004) Evaluation roots. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Altschuld JW, Zheng HY (1995) Assessing the effectiveness of research organizations: an examination of multiple approaches. Eval Rev 19(2):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote L, Ingram P, Levine JM, Moreland RL (2000) Knowledge transfer in organizations: learning from the experience of others. Organ Behav Hum Decis 82(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barjak F (2011) Wissens- und Technologietransfer als Interaktion: Theoretische Überlegungen und Fallbeispiele aus der Schweiz. Peter Lang, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Beise M, Spielkamp A (1996) Technologietransfer von Hochschulen: Ein Insider-Outsider-Effekt. ZEW discussion papers

    Google Scholar 

  • Beywl W, Speer S, Kehr J (2004) Wirkungsorientierte Evaluation im Rahmen der Armuts-und Reichtumsberichterstattung. Perspektivstudie. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Soziale Sicherung (BMGS), Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res Policy 29(4):627–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie CA, Alkin MC (2008) Evaluation theory tree re-examined. Stud Educ Eval 34(3):131–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki D, Rammer C, Spielkamp A (2000) Interaktion zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage bei Hochschulen und öffentlichen Forschungseinrichtungen. ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/docus/dokumentation0014.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2014

  • Fitzpatrick J, Sanders J, Worthen B (2004) Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (2001) Guidelines and checklist for constructivist (aka fourth generation) evaluation

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen HF (2005) Choosing evaluation models: a discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation 11(4):447–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman BM, Maskus KE, Saggi K (2005) Transfer of technology to developing countries: unilateral and multilateral policy options. World Dev 33(10):1587–1602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horizon (2014) Horizon 2020. The EU framework programme for research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/. Accessed 24 Mar 2014

  • House ER (1978) Assumptions underlying evaluation models. Educ Res:4–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey H (2000) Qualität und Evaluation im System Hochschule. In: Stockmann R (ed) Evaluationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 233–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann S, Heinze T (2003) Informationen zur Forschungsevaluation in Deutschland – Erzeuger und Bedarf. Gutachten für die Geschäftsstelle der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Frauenhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBris J, Pousttchi N, Suszka M (2010) Good Practices im Wissens- und Technologietransfer von Hochschulen. Handlungsempfehlungen, Rechercheergebnisse und Literatursammlung aus der TEA-Grundlagenstudie, Augsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowski N, Grosser K, Kuhl R Analyse von Barrieren und Hemmnissen beim Wissenstransfer zwischen Hochschulen und KMU. Düsseldorf Working Papers in Applied Management and Economics, vol 5. University Library, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner D, Sultanian E (2007) Wissens-und Technologietransfer: Grundlagen und Diskussion von Studien und Beispielen. CEST, Zentrum für Wissenschafts-und Technologiestudien

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi WG (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manag Sci 25(9):833–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2000) Utilization-focused evaluation. Springer, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Polt W, Gassler H, Schibany A, Rammer C, Schartinger D (2001a) Benchmarking industry—science relations: the role of framework conditions. Sci Public Pol 28(4):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polt W, Rammer C, Schartinger D, Gassler H, Schibany A (2001b) Benchmarking industry-science relations in Europe—the role of framework conditions. Sci Public Pol 28(4):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessner JD (2000) Technology transfer. In: Hill C (ed) Science and technology policy in the US. A time of change. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt M (2012) Firms in open source software development: managing innovation beyond firm boundaries. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch U (2000) Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland. Fraunhofer-IRB, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (2013) Key evaluation checklist (KEC). http://www.michaelscriven.info/images/KEC_3.22.2013.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2014

  • Stake R (1983) Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In: Evaluation models, vol 6. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 287–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockmann R, Caspari A, Meyer W (2007) Evaluation. Eine Einführung. UTB L (Large-Format), vol 8337. Budrich, Leverkusen

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam D (2001) Evaluation models. New Dir Eval 2001(89):7–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM, Giuliano T, Hertel PT (1985) Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In: Ickes W (ed) Compatible and incompatible relationships. Springer, New York, pp 253–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

    Harald F. O. von Kortzfleisch, Matthias Bertram, Dorothée Zerwas & Manfred Arndt

Authors
  1. Harald F. O. von Kortzfleisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Bertram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorothée Zerwas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manfred Arndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald F. O. von Kortzfleisch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Isabell M. Welpe

  2. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Jutta Wollersheim

  3. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Stefanie Ringelhan

  4. Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany, and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Margit Osterloh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Kortzfleisch, H.F.O., Bertram, M., Zerwas, D., Arndt, M. (2015). Consideration of Knowledge and Technology Transfer Characteristics for Research Evaluation. In: Welpe, I., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S., Osterloh, M. (eds) Incentives and Performance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation