Existing literature has confined university technology transfer almost exclusively to formal mechanisms, like patents, licenses or royalty agreements. Relatively little is known about informal technology transfer that is based upon interactions between university scientists and industry personnel. Moreover, most studies are limited to the United States, where the Bayh-Dole Act has shaped the institutional environment since 1980. In this paper, we provide a comparative study between the United States and Germany where the equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act has come into force only in 2002. Based on a sample of more than 800 university scientists, our results show similar relationships for the United States and Germany. Faculty quality which is however based on patent applications rather than publications serves as a major predictor for informal technology transfer activities. Hence, unless universities change their incentives (e.g., patenting as one criterion for promotion and tenure) knowledge will continue to flow out the backdoor.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In the following, we will use the term ‘university scientist’ as shorthand for scientists employed at universities or other public research institutes.
This excludes the so-called ‘universities of applied sciences’ whose major task is teaching and not research.
For all variables which enter the regression in logs, a value of 0 was replaced by 0.1 to prevent missing values due to the log transformation.
The reason for this is that sampling proportions by field could not be taken into account as—due to the inclusion of government-funded research institutes—the population of scientists in Germany with regard to the field is not fully transparent. In Germany, a significant share of the engineering related research activities are performed by the Fraunhofer institutes in comparison to universities. The same applies to life sciences research which is to a significant extent performed at Max Planck institutes.
Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 673–702.
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27, 254–267.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from mit. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.
Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2008). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 08-069, Mannheim.
Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2007). Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 311–319.
Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 26–34.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: The invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.
Feldman, M. P., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48, 105–121.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 81–85.
Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2008). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia to industry: complementarity effects and innovation performance, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 08-080, Mannheim.
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Journal of Economic Studies, 85, 485–491.
Jaffe, A. (1989). The real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 97(5), 957–970.
Kilger, C., & Bartenbach, K. (2002). New rules for German professors. Science, 298(8), 1173–1175.
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 252–264.
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, 169–182.
Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In: G. Liebcap (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth (pp. 1–38). Amsterdam.
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.
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, 27–48.
Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2006). Who’s patenting in the university? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 71–99.
Thursby, J. G., Fuller, A., & Thursby, M. C. (2007). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38, 14–25.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90–104.
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, 12709–12716.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138–153.
We thank Albert N. Link, Donald S. Siegel, the participants at the 2007 Technology Transfer Society Conference in Palm Desert, and Christian Rammer for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
See Table 3.
About this article
Cite this article
Grimpe, C., Fier, H. Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany. J Technol Transf 35, 637–650 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9140-4
- Informal university technology transfer
- Cross-country comparison