Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 169–198 | Cite as

Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities

  • Andrea Bonaccorsi
  • Luca SecondiEmail author
  • Enza Setteducati
  • Alessio Ancaiani
Article

Abstract

Over the last few years, the emergence of universities’ third mission has significantly affected objectives, sources of funding and financing methods, as well as the management, of universities. Although the university–industry relationships have been widely investigated, several interesting theoretical and empirical issues still remain open in the literature. In this paper we construct an original data set, combining financial information with structural and organizational data on Italian University departments, with a twofold aim. First, to describe the importance and the extent of third-party funding in the Italian system of research as well as the pattern of evolution over the last few years. Second, to investigate the factors that influence both the probability and the intensity of the commitment of departments in third-party activities by building a multi-level framework combining factors at individual, departmental, university and territorial levels. The results obtained suggest a number of policy implications for universities and policy makers. On one hand, universities should explicitly recognize the role of dedicated internal organizations and provide training for professional staff capable of acting as value-added intermediaries. On the other hand, if policy makers wish to improve the relationships between universities and external actors, disciplinary differences across departments as well as regional inequalities in growth levels should be carefully considered, giving up a one-size-fits-all approach.

Keywords

University–industry relations Third-party research Italian University department Heckman selection model 

JEL Classification

I23 O32 C34 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their useful suggestions concerning our study. Comments on a previous version of the study, presented at the 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (Madrid, November 2011) were also helpful.

References

  1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012). The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: UK Innovation Research Centre.Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., & McHale, J. (2006). Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison, P., & Long, S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55, 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local Geographic Spillovers between University research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University–industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analyzing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boardman, P. C. (2008). Beyond the stars: The impact of affiliation with university biotechnology centers on the industrial involvement of university scientists. Technovation, 28(5), 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M., Guerini, M., & Rossi Lamastra, C. (2012). The spatial range of university knowledge and the creation of knowledge intensive firms. Small Business Economics (Submitted to).Google Scholar
  16. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in the organisation of science. The case on the Italian National Research Council. Scientometrics, 58(1), 49–90.Google Scholar
  17. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63, 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2007). Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review, 47(4), 687–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brandt, T., & Schubert, T. (2012). Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0834-2.
  23. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bruno, G., & Orsenigo, L. (2003). Determinanti dei finanziamenti industriali alla ricerca universitaria in Italia. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  25. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  27. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Crescenzi, R., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2007). The territorial dynamics of innovation: a Europe–United States comparative analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(6), 673–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Daraio, C., Bonaccorsi, A., et al. (2011). The European University landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project. Research Policy, 40, 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.Google Scholar
  33. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. European Commission (2007). Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: Embracing open innovation, COM (2007) 182 final, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  36. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2012). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(2011), 1113–1127.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2003). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of universityindustry collaboration. SPRU Electronic Working Papers Series, paper no. 103. Available at http://139.184.32.141/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp103/sewp103.pdf.
  39. Fukugawa, N. (2012) University spillovers into small technology-based firms: channel, mechanism, and geography. Journal of Technology Transfer, doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9247-x, online first.
  40. Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money. Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 607–632.Google Scholar
  42. Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2008). What drives the formation of valuable ‘University–industry’ linkages? An under-explored question in a hot policy debate. SPRU Electronic Working Papers, Paper No. 170.Google Scholar
  43. Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2000). Universities as research partners. NBER Working Papers N°7643.Google Scholar
  47. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Herbst, M. (2009). Financing public universities. The case of performance funding. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Hottenrott, H. (2011). The role of research orientation for attracting competitive research funding, K.U. Leuven. Dept. of Managerial Economics, Strategy and innovation, OR 1104, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
  50. Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth S. (2010). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 10–105, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  51. Hulsbeck, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Starnecker, A. (2011). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9243-6, online first.
  52. 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
  53. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., et al. (2007). Convergence versus national specificities in research policies. An empirical study on public project funding. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 83–93.Google Scholar
  59. Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McKelvey, M., & Holmén, M. (2009). Learning to compete in European universities: From social institution to knowledge business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration networks. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. P. (2008). The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Renault, C. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). Sustainability of incentives for excellent research. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research Discussion Paper, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  78. Sellenthin, M. O. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). 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
  80. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  82. Van Dierdonck, R., Debackere, K., & Engelen, B. (1990). University–industry relationships: How does the Belgian academic community feel about it? Research Policy, 19(6), 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Varga, A. (2000). Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science, 40(2), 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weick, K. E. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  85. Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37(10), 1854–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). USA: The Mit Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bonaccorsi
    • 1
  • Luca Secondi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Enza Setteducati
    • 1
  • Alessio Ancaiani
    • 1
  1. 1.National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research InstitutesRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations