We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Advertisement

A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature

  • 110 Accesses

Abstract

This study explores academic research on technology transfer (TT) and the related themes. The TT field has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years and has grown rapidly, resulting in a large body of knowledge. Using a bibliometric approach, this study reviews related research issues as well as their influence and connections and provides directions for future research. It uses Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science database that includes 3218 bibliographic references. Several bibliometric analysis techniques and a subsequent review of the content of the most relevant documents are adopted. The performance analysis provided an updated overview of the evolution of the TT literature from 1969 to 2018 and quantitatively identified the most active and influential journals, articles, authors, and organizations. The co-authorship network analysis allowed us to identify and visualize the structure of relations between authors as well as determine the collaboration patterns among them. On the basis of the information supplied by the co-authorship network, the main literature was reviewed to identify the current status and research trends related to TT, identifying five main research streams and related topics. The implications of the study’s findings and directions for future TT research are finally discussed to enhance our understanding of TT agents and issues and support further research in this field.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Keywords Plus is the result of Clarivate Analytics’ editorial expertise. Its editors review the titles of all bibliographic references and highlight additional relevant keywords not listed by the authors or publishers, which results in more precise searches.

  2. 2.

    The first issue of Journal of Technology Transfer was published in 1977. Technovation began in 1981 and International Journal of Technology Management in 1986.

  3. 3.

    This list is available to readers upon request.

  4. 4.

    As the number of citations increase over an established threshold of citations, the network decreases and thereby the number of clusters and related articles in each cluster also fall. Notwithstanding this reduction, the main clusters remain but with fewer authors and articles in each of them.

  5. 5.

    A complete list of authors can be made available upon request.

  6. 6.

    For instance, in the thematic group identified as international TT, two close topics were identified: international joint venture and mergers and acquisitions. These subjects were finally renamed under a single sub-topic called international joint venture.

  7. 7.

    A complete list of the articles included in each research stream and topic can be made available upon request.

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Infometrics,5(4), 594–607.

  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation,29(6), 498–507.

  3. Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy,42(2), 408–422.

  4. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal,47(4), 501–522.

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

  6. Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review,89(3), 605–618.

  7. Apriliyanti, I. D., & Alon, I. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity. International Business Review,26(5), 896–907.

  8. Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalization of technology and its implications for developing countries: Windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,70(9), 861–883.

  9. Autio, E., & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: Review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management,10(7–8), 643–664.

  10. Baier-Fuentes, F., Merigo, J. M., Amoros, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal,15(2), 385–429.

  11. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of italian patent data. Research Policy,33(1), 127–145.

  12. Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,14(2), 197–210.

  13. Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organizational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 1195–1234.

  14. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science,19(1), 69–89.

  15. Bierly, P. E., III, Damanpour, F., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies,46(3), 481–509.

  16. Birley, S. (2002). Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,1(1), 1–21.

  17. Blackman, D., & Benson, A. M. (2012). Overcoming knowledge stickiness in scientific knowledge transfer. Public Understanding of Science,21(5), 573–589.

  18. Blomström, M., & Sjöholm, F. (1999). Technology transfer and spillovers: Does local participation with multinationals matter? European Economic Review,43(4–6), 915–923.

  19. Bozeman, B. (1994). Evaluating government technology transfer: Early impacts of the cooperative technology paradigm. Policy Studies Journal,22(2), 322–337.

  20. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy,29(4), 627–655.

  21. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.

  22. Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies,30(3), 439–462.

  23. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy,39(7), 858–868.

  24. Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review,20(2), 141–162.

  25. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy,34(3), 369–384.

  26. Chen, G., & Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics,10(1), 212–223.

  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.

  28. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An aproach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical a lication to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 146–166.

  29. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science ma ing analysis software tool. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,63(8), 1609–1630.

  30. Cobo, M. J., Martinez, M. A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. F. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems,80, 3–13.

  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 128–152.

  32. Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior,27, 305–353.

  33. Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Dabic, M. (2006). The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs and local subsidiaries: A croatian illustration. Journal of World Business,41(2), 100–111.

  34. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy,36(9), 1295–1313.

  35. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer,36(3), 316–339.

  36. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press Inc.

  37. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy,32(2), 209–227.

  38. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer,33(3), 225–247.

  39. Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly,14(4), 587–606.

  40. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy,27(8), 823–833.

  41. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy,32(1), 109–121.

  42. 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, 9–23.

  43. Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). The economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  44. Feng, F., Zhang, L., Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation. Journal of Informetrics,9(1), 118–134.

  45. Frame, J. D. (1979). National economic resources and the production of research in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science,9(4), 233–246.

  46. Freeman, C. (1989). Technology policy and economic performance Pinter. London: Publishers Great Britain.

  47. Gaviria-Marín, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,140, 194–220.

  48. Geisler, E. (1993). Technology transfer: Toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions. The Journal of Technology Transfer,18(3–4), 88–93.

  49. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva,47(1), 93–114.

  50. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy,35(6), 790–807.

  51. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F. M., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 818–840.

  52. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,51(1), 57–69.

  53. Görg, H., & Greenaway, D. (2004). Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer,19(2), 171–197.

  54. Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics,86(4), 883–895.

  55. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40(8), 1045–1057.

  56. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly,44(1), 82–111.

  57. Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40(6), 1003–1015.

  58. Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy,45(2), 475–490.

  59. Heinzl, J., Kor, A., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2013). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer,38(5), 607–640.

  60. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy,35(5), 715–728.

  61. Hsieh, C., Lu, L. Y., Liu, J. S., & Kondrashov, A. (2014). A literature review with citation analysis of technology transfer. In Management of engineering and technology (PICMET). 2014 Portl& international conference on IEEE.

  62. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics,14, 299–309.

  63. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,3(3), 383–397.

  64. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal,24(4), 293–316.

  65. Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management,67(1), 55–73.

  66. Lam, A. (2011). University–industry collaboration: careers and knowledge governance in hybrid organizational space. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances,2(1/2), 135–145.

  67. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,31(4), 833–863.

  68. Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,55(1), 23–28.

  69. Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2002). The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity. Industrial Management and Data Systems,102(6), 300–308.

  70. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy,34(7), 981–993.

  71. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy,34(7), 1043–1057.

  72. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Ecponomics,20(2), 185–200.

  73. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management,26(1), 78–92.

  74. Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy,31(2), 213–231.

  75. Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal,18(1), 39–61.

  76. Malik, K. (2002). Aiding the technology manager: A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation,22(7), 427–436.

  77. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing,20(2), 241–263.

  78. Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics,36(3), 543–565.

  79. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics,36(3), 363–377.

  80. Moed, H., De Bruin, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics,33(3), 381–422.

  81. Moran, T. H. (2001). Parental supervision: The new paradigm for foreign direct investment and development. Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

  82. 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(1), 99–119.

  83. Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology-transfer and competitiveness—The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics,19(1), 67–93.

  84. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,17(2), 77–91.

  85. Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh–Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science,48(1), 73–89.

  86. Murgado-Armenteros, E. M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., & Cobo, M. J. (2015). Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis. Scientometrics,102(1), 519–557.

  87. Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,29(12), 859–872.

  88. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy,35(2), 289–308.

  89. Naseer, M. M., & Mahmood, K. (2009). Use of bibliometrics in LIS research. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal,19(2), 1–21.

  90. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer,35(10), 617–636.

  91. Noh, H., & Lee, S. (2017). Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: A quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(3), 700–740.

  92. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research,14, 25–46.

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

  94. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.

  95. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,9(4), 259–280.

  96. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (Vol. 5, pp. 9–24). International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

  97. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics,2(4), 355–369.

  98. Ranga, L., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. a lied research in belgium. Scientometrics,58(2), 301–320.

  99. Roberts, E. B., & Malonet, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management,26(1), 17–48.

  100. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change,16(4), 691–791.

  101. Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, M. (1992). European technology policy evolution: Convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation,12(4), 223–238.

  102. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal,22(3), 237–250.

  103. Saggi, K. (2002). Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer,17(2), 191–235.

  104. Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy,35(6), 772–789.

  105. Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation & entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,13(2), 369–395.

  106. Schraven, D. F., Hartmann, A., & Dewulf, G. P. (2015). Research orientations towards the ‘management’of infrastructure assets: An intellectual structure a roach. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,11(2), 73–96.

  107. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

  108. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,23(4), 640–660.

  109. 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.

  110. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,21(1–2), 115–142.

  111. Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. The Journal of Technology Transfer,37(4), 404–415.

  112. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management,26(4), 582–595.

  113. Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(3), 916–947.

  114. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,50(9), 799813.

  115. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation,30(2), 130–141.

  116. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,17(2), 27–43.

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

  118. Szulanski, G., Ringov, D., & Jensen, R. J. (2016). Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organization Science,27(2), 304–322.

  119. Teece, D. J. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological knowledge. Economic Journal,87(346), 242–261.

  120. Teixeira, A. A., & Mota, L. (2012). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links. Scientometrics,93(3), 719–743.

  121. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,44(5), 996–1004.

  122. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric ma ing. Scientometrics,84(2), 523–538.

  123. Van Oorschot, J. A. W. H., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. M. (2018). A Bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,134, 1–21.

  124. Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science,21(4), 931–951.

  125. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., Jegak, U., & Abdullah, H. (2009). A review on the technology transfer models, knowledge-based and organizational learning models on technology transfer. European Journal of Social Sciences,10(1), 551–564.

  126. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012a). Defining the concepts of technology and technology transfer: A literature analysis. International Business Research,5(1), 61–71.

  127. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012b). The Theoretical perspectives underlying technology transfer: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management,7(2), 277–288.

  128. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing,21(4), 541–567.

  129. Wang, J.-Y., & Blomström, M. (1992). Foreign-investment and technology transfer—A simple-model. Europena Economc Review,36(1), 137–155.

  130. 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(8), 1205–1223.

  131. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy,35(4), 481–501.

  132. Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. (2008). Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management,34(5), 882–902.

  133. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 185–203.

  134. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods,18(3), 429–472.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from Dr. Donald Siegel and anonymous referees on earlier versions of this paper. Any errors and misjudgements remain the responsibility of the authors.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation & Universities (MCIU/AEI/FEDER-UE) under the Grant Number RTI2018-097579-B-100, by UPV/EHU under the Grant Number GIU16/46, and by FESIDE.

Author information

Correspondence to Amaia Maseda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bengoa, A., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T. et al. A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature. J Technol Transf (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09774-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Technology transfer
  • Bibliometrics
  • Performance analysis
  • Co-authorship analysis

JEL Classification

  • M15
  • O3