Scientometrics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 719–743 | Cite as

A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links

Article

Abstract

The study of university–industry (U–I) relations has been the focus of growing interest in the literature. However, to date, a quantitative overview of the existing literature in this field has yet to be accomplished. This study intends to fill this gap through the use of bibliometric techniques. By using three different yet interrelated databases—a database containing the articles published on U–I links, which encompass 534 articles published between 1986 and 2011; a ‘roots’ database, which encompasses over 20,000 references to the articles published on U–I relations; and a ‘influences’ database which includes more than 15,000 studies that cited the articles published on U–I relations—we obtained the following results: (1) ‘Academic spin offs’, ‘Scientific and technological policies’ and (to a greater extent) ‘Knowledge Transfer Channels’ are topics in decline; (2) ‘Characteristics of universities, firms and scientists’, along with ‘Regional spillovers’, show remarkable growth, and ‘Measures and indicators’ can be considered an emergent topic; (3) clear tendency towards ‘empirical’ works, although ‘appreciative and empirical’ papers constitute the bulk of this literature; (4) the multidisciplinary nature of the intellectual roots of the U–I literature—an interesting blending of neoclassical economics (focused on licensing, knowledge transfer and high-tech entrepreneurship) and heterodox approaches (mainly related to systems of innovation) is observed in terms of intellectual roots; (5) the influence of the U–I literature is largely concentrated on the industrialized world and on the research area of innovation and technology (i.e., some ‘scientific endogamy’ is observed).

Keywords

University–industry links Entrepreneurial universities Technology transfer University spin offs Bibliometrics 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: a bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29, 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2012). A bibliometric tool to assess the regional dimension of university–industry research collaboration. Scientometrics, 91, 955–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: the case of Biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  6. Bains, W. (2005). How academics can make (extra) money out of their science. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 11(4), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: the case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 5, 1616–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analyzing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breznitz, S. M., O’Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broström, A., McKelvey, M., & Sandström, C. (2009). Investing in localized relationships with universities: what are the benefits for R&D subsidiaries of multinational enterprises? Industry and Innovation, 16(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jenna: an application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35, 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coccia, M. (2004). Spatial metrics of the technological transfer. Analysis and Strategic Management, 16(1), 31–51.CrossRefGoogle 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. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crowe, J. A., & Goldberg, J. R. (2009). University–industry relationships in colleges of agriculture and life sciences: the role of women faculty. Rural Sociology, 74(4), 498–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruz, S., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2010). The evolution of the cluster literature: shedding light on the regional studies-regional science debate. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1263–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Decter, M. H. (2009). Comparative review of UK-USA industry-university relationships. Education and Training, 51(8/9), 624–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du, Y., & Teixeira, A.A.C. (2012). A bibliometric account of Chinese economics research through the lens of the China Economic Review. China Economic Review, forthcoming. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2012.04.009.
  21. Edler, J., Fier, H., & Grimpe, C. (2011). International scientist mobility and the locus of knowledge and technology transfer. Research Policy, 40(6), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255–267.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Lud, J., & Wright, M. (2011). Knowledge spillovers through human mobility across national borders: evidence from Zhongguancun Science Park in China. Research Policy, 40(3), 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fleming, L., King, C., I. I. I., & Juda, A. (2004). Small worlds and innovation. Mimeo: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  29. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: the importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy, 35, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garfield, E. (1994). The relationship between citing and cited publications: a question of relatedness. Current Contents, 15. http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/useofcitationdatabases/relationship/. Accessed on July 2012.
  31. Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages? Research Policy, 38, 906–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goyal, S., van der Leji, M., & Moraga-González, J. L. (2006). Economics: an emerging small world. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Business Economics, 21, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gübeli, M. H., & Doloreux, D. (2005). An empirical study of university spin-off development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gulbrandsen, M., Mowery, D., & Feldman, M. (2011). Introduction to the special section: heterogeneity and university–industry relations. Research Policy, 40, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hemmert, M., Okamuro, H., Bstieler, L., & Ruth, K. (2008). An inquiry into the status and nature of university–industry research collaborations in Japan and Korea. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 49, 163–180.Google Scholar
  37. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: university spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kinsella, R., & McBrierty, V. (1997). Campus companies and the emerging techno-academic paradigm. Technovation, 17(5), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klincewicz, K., & Miyazaki, K. (2011). Sectoral systems of innovation in Asia. The case of software research activities. International Journal of Technology Management, 53(2/3/4), 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koschatzky, K., & Stahlecker, T. (2010). The emergence of new modes of R&D services in Germany. The Service Industries Journal, 30(5), 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krücken, G., Meier, F., & Müller, A. (2009). Linkages to the civil society as ‘leisure time activities’? Experiences at a German university. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lam, A. (2005). Work roles and careers of R&D scientists in network organizations. Industrial Relations, 44(2), 242–275.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, K.-J., Ohta, T., & Kakehi, K. (2010). Formal boundary spanning by industry liaison offices and the changing pattern of university–industry cooperative research: the case of the University of Tokyo. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(2), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations (Introduction to the topical issue). Scientometrics, 70(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy, 38(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden—implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Link, A. N., Rothaermel, F. T., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). University technology transfer: an introduction to the Special Issue. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lubango, L. M., & Pouris, A. (2007). Industry work experience and inventive capacity of South African academic researchers. Technovation, 27, 788–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: an empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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, 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meyer-Kramer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interaction in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Monjon, S., & Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers form universities to firms: evidence from French form-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1255–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. Universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: how entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35, 1499–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. Universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Olds, K. (2007). Global assemblage: Singapore, foreign universities, and the construction of a “global education hub”. World Development, 35(6), 959–975.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university–industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pazos, D. R., Lopez, S. F., Sandias, A. R., & Gonzalez, L. O. (2010). Obstáculos para las spin-offs universitarias en España y Galicia. Revista Galega de Economia, 10(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  67. Pinheiro, L., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2010). Bridging university-firm and open innovation literature: a critical synthesis. Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, 15(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
  68. Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2007). Key drivers of university–industry relationships: the role of organisational compatibility and personal experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(5), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. B. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pugatch, M. P., & Chu, R. (2011). The strength of pharmaceutical IPRs vis-à-vis foreign direct investment in clinical research: preliminary findings. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 17, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernández-Esquinas, M., & Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, E. (2009). Measuring university–industry collaboration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 84(3), 1588–2861.Google Scholar
  72. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhilch, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Silva, E., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2008). Surveying structural change: seminal contributions and a bibliometric account. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19, 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Silva, S. T., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2009). On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19, 605–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Small, H. (2009). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Swann, G.M.P. (2002). Innovative business and the science and technology base, Report for Department for Trade and Industry, UK, October.Google Scholar
  84. Teixeira, A. A. C. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35, 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: an entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2–3), 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: an empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vera, E. R., & Schupp, T. (2006). Network analysis in comparative social sciences. Comparative Education, 42(3), 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weintraub, R. (2002). How economics became a mathematical science. Durhman: Duke University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  90. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and technology transfer (special edition). The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Wu, W. (2009). Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Xiwei, Z., & Xiangdong, Y. (2007). Science and technology policy reform and its impact on China’s national innovation system. Technology in Society, 29, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the Invisible College. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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 of the United States of America, 93, 12709–12716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Amstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in Biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. Biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEF.UP, Faculdade de EconomiaUniversidade do Porto, INESC TEC, OBEGEFPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de EconomiaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations