Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 316–339 | Cite as

Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations

  • Pablo D’Este
  • Markus Perkmann
Article

Abstract

The debate on the entrepreneurial university has raised questions about what motivates academic scientists to engage with industry. This paper provides evidence based on survey data for a large sample of UK investigators in the physical and engineering sciences. The results suggest that most academics engage with industry to further their research rather than to commercialize their knowledge. However, there are differences in terms of the channels of engagement. Patenting and spin-off company formation are motivated exclusively by commercialization whilst joint research, contract research and consulting are strongly informed by research-related motives. We conclude that policy should refrain from overly focusing on monetary incentives for industry engagement and consider a broader range of incentives for promoting interaction between academia and industry.

Keywords

University-industry relations Joint research Collaborative research Commercialization Entrepreneurial university Motivation 

JEL Classification

I23 O32 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Virginia Acha, Thomas Astebro, Charles Baden-Fuller, Kate Bishop, Isabel Bodas de Araújo Freitas, Maryann Feldman, Roberto Fontana, Patrick Llerena, Ammon Salter, Naohiro Shichijo, Valentina Tartari, Finn Valentin, Jaider Vega-Jurado, John Walsh, Kathryn Walsh for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies. Previous versions of the paper were presented at the Triple Helix Conference (16–18 May 2007, Singapore), the AIM workshop ‘Exploring & Mapping University-Industry Relationships’ (21 May 2007, London) and the DIME plenary session at the DRUID Summer Conference (17–19 June 2009, Copenhagen). The authors acknowledge support from the Innovation and Productivity Grand Challenge (IPGC), an initiative of the Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/C534239/1). Markus Perkmann acknowledges funding from the Economic and Social Research Council via an AIM Practices Fellowship (RES-331-27-0063).

References

  1. Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Starkey, K. (2001). Industry-university cooperative research centers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. M. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.Google Scholar
  5. Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The Triple-Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70(2), 301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology—Implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata Journal, 3(3), 278–294.Google Scholar
  12. Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32(6), 887–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon: New York.Google Scholar
  14. 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), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feller, I. (1990). Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Florida, R., & Cohen, W. M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 589–610). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B., & Bero, L. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2009). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer (in press).Google Scholar
  25. Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-009-9140-4.
  26. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2000). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirby, D. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted the virtue of biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lowe, R. A. (2006). Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manning, W. G., Duan, N., & Rogers, W. H. (1987). Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 35(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKelvey, M., & Holmén, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning to compete in European universities: From social institution to knowledge business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. International edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  49. Moutinho, P., Fontes, M., Godinho, M. (2007). Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 355–377.Google Scholar
  50. Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  52. Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8,9), 1389–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Noble, D. F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  57. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001a). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001b). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from qualitative and quantitative research in the US and UK. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 66–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Polanyi, M. (2000 [1962]). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 38:1–32.Google Scholar
  66. Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roessner, J. D. (1993). What companies want from the Federal labs. Issues in Science and Technology, 10(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
  69. Rosell, C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Have university knowledge flows narrowed? Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 38(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  74. Shane, S. A. (2005). Economic development through entrepreneurship: Government, university and business linkages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  75. Siegel, D. S., & Zervos, V. (2002). Strategic research partnerships and economic performance: Empirical issues. Science and Public Policy, 29, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stiglitz, J., & Wallsten, S. (1999). Public-private technology partnerships: Promises and pitfalls. American Behavioural Scientist, 43–73(1), 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  83. Thursby, J. G. A., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. A. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tornquist, K. M., & Kallsen, L. A. (1994). Out of the ivory tower: Characteristics of institutions meeting the research needs of industry. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6(2), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Woolgar, L. (2007). New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan. Research Policy, 36(8), 1261–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12709–12716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1972). Age, aging, and age structure in science. In M. W. Riley, M. Johnson, & A. Foner (Eds.), A sociology of age stratification (pp. 292–356). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INGENIO, CSIC-UPVSpanish Council for Scientific Research, Polytechnic University of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Business SchoolImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations