Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university–business linking activities

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work discusses the effects of university culture and structure on university–business relations, focusing on knowledge transfer activities. It puts forward the thesis that when links between university and business are introduced into the university system as a turn-key proposition rather than as developmental process, the prevailing university culture and structure will exert resistance against change and will oppose the creation of appropriate structures to promote them, with deleterious effects for the university.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. Following the notions expressed by Cardinal Newman in the 1850s.

  2. Source: Presentation given by representatives of the World Bank in the Venezuelan Ministry of Science and Technology, September, 2003.

  3. Source: EIM Business & Policy Research, estimation based on Eurostats data base. Also European Economy, Supplement A, June 2001 and OECD: Economic Outlook, No. 69, June 2001.

  4. Source: Council on Governmental Relations, U.S.A., Copyright 1999.

  5. Using the term innovation as defined as “The process by which firms master and get into practice product designs and manufacturing systems that are new to them”, by Nelson (1993).

  6. Source: Association of University Technology Managers Inc., AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 1999, c2000.

  7. Source: EC, 2002, Economic Policy Committee DG ECFIN, Working Group on R&D, Report on Research and Development.

  8. Measured as the amount of publications present in the scientific index. Source: Observatoire des sciences et des techniques. Published in December 1994. Data obtained from the Science Citation Index of ISI Society.

  9. Source: World Development Indicators, 2002.

  10. Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002.

  11. For more information view http//:www.usb.ve

  12. Source: Boletin Estadistico 1996-2000, Universidad Simon Bolivar.

  13. In 2004, the salary of the faculty was 25% of the value of 1984’s salaries, measured in terms of US dollars.

  14. Source: FUNINDES-USB, Informe de Gestion, 2000.

  15. Source: Corporacion Parque Tecnologico Sartenejas, Informe de Gestion 2000.

  16. As described in the by-laws of FUNINDES-USB.

  17. This process of reengineering was surrounded by a great among of controversy and did not advance beyond defining a new mission for the university and partly restructuring its accounting system.

  18. These regulations are based on Venezuela’s public servant’s law and include additional benefits that have been included through union-employer negotiations. A major difference with the university labour regime relates to employee security. According to the law pertaining university labour policy, it is very difficult to remove university employees, and they practically enjoy a tenured-like position. The faculty perceives this as being detrimental and making the university administrative system inefficient.

  19. The majority of faculty members were under a university contract known as exclusive dedication, which prohibits obtaining additional revenues outside the university’s salary.

  20. The USB became a minority shareholder (5%) of the consortium that owned the telecommunications firm

  21. Source: Corporacion Parque Tecnologico Sartenejas, Informe de Gestion 2000.

  22. The election system is under constant revision following political and social trends.

References

  • Arora, A. (1996). Contracting for tacit knowledge: The provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts. Journal of Development Economics, 50, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behaviour: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Laget, P. (2004). Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public-private, EU-US R&D partnerships. R&D Management, 34(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, W. J., & Detragiache, E. (1999). How extensive is the brain drain? Finance and Development, 36(2), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (CINDA) y Agencia Española de Cooperacion Internacional (1997). Cooperación Universidad-Empresa: Experiencias Comparadas, Colección Ciencia y Tecnología No. 42.

  • Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo, CINDA, (1996). Cooperación Universidad-Empresa: Visiones de Europa y América Latina (Volumen 1).

  • Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo, CINDA, (1998). Cooperación Universidad-Empresa: Visiones de Europa y América Latina (Volumen 2).

  • Dogson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

  • EC (2000). Economic Policy Committee DG ECFIN, Working Group on R&D, Report of Research and Development.

  • Ertzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix university–industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. Theme paper, Amsterdan.

  • Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. (1998). Nuevas estrategias de promoción de la Cooperación Universidad-Empresa. In Cooperación Universidad-Empresa: Visiones de Europa y América Latina (Volumen 2). Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo, CINDA.

  • Horowitz, J. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: Venezuela a case study. In: Tiffin, S. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship in Latin America. Greenwood: Praeger Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. (2001). Modelo de Estructura Corporativa como Mecanismo de Integración de la Unidades de Interfaz de la Universidad Simón Bolívar. ESPACIOS. Volumen 22, No1.

  • Horowitz, J., Mozzicato, P., Hernández, G., & Hernández, M.A. (1999). Nuevas visiones y estrategias de promoción de la vinculación Universidad-Empresa implica desarrollar nuevos procesos y diseñar nuevas formas de organización. Revista Valenciana D’ Estudis Autonomics., Resúmenes y ponencias (Formato CD).

  • Kantis, H., Ishida, M., & Komori, M. (2002). Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: The Creation and Development of New Firms in Latin American and East Asia. Summary Report. Inter-American Development Bank.

  • Karnoe, P., Cristensen, P. H., & Andersen, P. H. (1999). Mobilizing resources and generating competencies. Copenhagen Business School Press.

  • Khilstrom, R., & Laffont, J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B-A. (1992). National systems of innovation-toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91, 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (1999). The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer. In L. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 269–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (1988). Institutions supporting technical change in the United States. In: Dosi, G. et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. London: Frances Pinter.

  • Nelson, R. (1993). National Innovation System: A comparitive analysis. Oxford University press.

  • Pisano, G., & Mang, P. (1993). Collaborative product development and the market for know-how: Strategies and structures in the biotechnology industry. Research on Technology Innovation, Management Policy, 5, 109–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. (1989). Using equity participation to support exchange: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 5(1), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polt, W. (2001). Benchmarking Industry Science Relations: The role of framework conditions. Final report prepared for EC-DG Enterprise.

  • Porter, M. (1995). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., William, D., Autio, E., & Hay Michael, M. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2001 Executive Report. United Nations Association of the United States of America and the Business Council for the United Nations.

  • Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizacional culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1936). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 122–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (1999). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An Exploratory Study, NBER Working Paper 7256. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Teece, D. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 1, 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., & Kemp, S. (1999). Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing. Working Paper, Purdue University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business, Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Jeaninne Horowitz Gassol

Authors
  1. Jeaninne Horowitz Gassol
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeaninne Horowitz Gassol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horowitz Gassol, J. The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university–business linking activities. J Technol Transfer 32, 489–507 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9035-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9035-1

Keywords

JEL Classifications