The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 1–67 | Cite as

Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art

Article

Abstract

There is abundant evidence that research collaboration has become the norm in every field of scientific and technical research. We provide a critical overview of the literature on research collaboration, focusing particularly on individual-level collaborations among university researchers, but we also give attention to university researchers’ collaborations with researchers in other sectors, including industry. We consider collaborations aimed chiefly at expanding the base of knowledge (knowledge-focused collaborations) as well as ones focused on production of economic value and wealth (property-focused collaborations), the latter including most academic entrepreneurship research collaborations. To help organize our review we develop a framework for analysis, one that considers attributes of collaborators, collaborative process and organization characteristics as the affect collaboration choices and outcomes. In addition, we develop and use a “Propositional Table for Research Collaboration Literature,” presented as an “Appendix” to this study. We conclude with some suggestions for possible improvement in research on collaboration including: (1) more attention to multiple levels of analysis and the interactions among them; (2) more careful measurement of impacts as opposed to outputs; (3) more studies on ‘malpractice’ in collaboration, including exploitation; (4) increased attention to collaborators’ motives and the social psychology of collaborative teams.

Keywords

Research collaboration Knowledge transfer Technology transfer Research productivity Academic entrepreneurship Contributorship Research effectiveness 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O38 L23 M38 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information with the R&D organization. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aschoff, B., & Grimpe, C. (2011). Localized norms and academics’ industry involvement: The moderating role of age on professional imprinting. Unpublished paper downloaded February 3, 2012 from http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/innovationpatenting2011/papers/Grimpe.pdf.
  6. Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver, D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaver, D. B. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Reward systems and NSF university research centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (in press). Academic faculty working in university research centers: Neither capitalism’s slaves nor teaching fugitives. The Journal of Higher Education. Google Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7), 716–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaboration motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. (2002). A churn model of knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31(4), 769–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bozeman, B., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Gaughan, M. (2012). Thedark sideof academic research collaborations: Case studies in exploitation, bullying and unethical behavior. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) October 17–20, 2012, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  21. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buisseret, T. J., Cameron, H. M., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make additionality in the public support of RD in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4–5), 587–600.Google Scholar
  24. Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University–industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carayannis, E. G., & Laget, P. (2004). Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: Public‐private, EU–US R&D partnerships. R&D Management, 34(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chang, D. B., & Dozier, K. (1995). Technology transfer and academic education with a focus on diversity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(3), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chompalov, I., Genuth, J., & Shrum, W. (2002). The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy, 31(5), 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chompalov, I., & Shrum, W. (1999). Institutional collaboration in science: A typology of technological practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 24(3), 338–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Clark, B. Y. (2011). Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(5), 514–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Mustar, P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, 38(10), 1517–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Cohen, M. B., Tarnow, E., & De Young, B. R. (2004). Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survey-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. Medscape General Medicine, 63(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  34. Collins, S., & Wakoh, H. (2000). Universities and technology transfer in Japan: Recent reforms in historical perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cooper, M. H. (2009). Commercialization of the university and problem choice by academic biological scientists. Science Technology Human Values, 34(5), 629–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Crow, M. M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Devine, E. B., Beney, J., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Equity, accountability, transparency: Implementation of the contributorship concept in a multi-site study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(4), 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Faria, J. R., & Goel, R. K. (2010). Returns to networking in academia. Netnomics, 11(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Feller, I., & Feldman, M. (2010). The commercialization of academic patents: Black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Feller, I., & Roessner, D. (1995). What does industry expect from university partnerships? Congress wants to see bottom-line results from industry/government programs, but that’s not what the participating companies are seeking. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(1), 80–84.Google Scholar
  48. Fox, M. F., & Mohapta, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2001). A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 51(10), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2010). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities: The impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30(3), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Geisler, E. (1986). The role of industrial advisory boards in technology transfer between universities and industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 10(2), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Goel, R. K., & Grimpe, C. (2011) Active versus passive academic networking: Evidence from micro-level data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9236-5.
  57. Gray, D. O., & Steenhuis, H. J. (2003). Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance. Scientometrics, 58(2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Grosse Kathoefer, D., & Leker, J. (2010). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the not-invented-here syndrome. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Grossman, J. H., Reid, P. P., & Morgan, R. P. (2001). Contributions of academic research to industrial performance in five industry sectors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). From R&D to productivity growth: Do the institutional settings and the source of funds of R&D matter? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gulbrandsen, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (1999). Convergence between Europe and America: The transition from industrial to innovation policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smedby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnership. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–University collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hisrich, R. D., & Smilor, R. W. (1988). The university and business incubation: Technology transfer through entrepreneurial development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 13(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. S. (2010). International collaboration and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Huang, K. F., & Yu, C. M. J. (2011). The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(4), 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jankowski, J. E. (1999). Trends in academic research spending, alliances, and commercialization. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Johnson, W. H. A. (2009). Intermediates in triple helix collaboration: The roles of 4th pillar organisations in public to private technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 8(2), 142–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2012). Perspective: Adopting an asset bundles model to support and advance minority students’ careers in academic medicine and the scientific pipeline. Academic Medicine, 87(11), 1488–1495.Google Scholar
  80. Katz, J. S. (2000). Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Klingensmith, M. E., & Anderson, K. A. (2006). Educational scholarship as a route to academic promotion: A depiction of surgical education scholars. The American Journal of Surgery, 191(4), 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Lagnado, M. (2003). Professional writing assistance: Effects on biomedical publishing. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Landry, R. J., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Levsky, M. E., Rosin, A., Coon, T. P., Enslow, W. L., & Miller, M. A. (2007). A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995–2005. Southern Medical Journal, 100(4), 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Levy, R., Roux, P., & Wolff, S. (2009). An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 747–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2012). Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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 & corporate change. Research Policy, 16(4), 641–655.Google Scholar
  96. Liu, H., Chang, B., & Chen, K. (2012). Collaboration patterns of Taiwanese scientific publications in various research areas. Scientometrics, 29(1), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29(6), 711–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Marusić, M., Bozikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gaspić, M., & Marusić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Matt, M., Robin, S., & Wolff, S. (2011). The influence of public programs on inter-firm R&D collaboration strategies: Project-level evidence from EU FP5 and FP6. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9232-9.
  103. Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Nilsson, A., & Sundberg, C. (2008). Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU. Scientometrics, 75(3), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. McCrary, S., Anderson, C., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., McCullough, L., Wray, N., et al. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343(22), 1621–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect. Social Forces, 74(2), 379–422.Google Scholar
  110. Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Morgan, R. P., Kruytbosch, C., & Kannankutty, N. (2001). Patenting and invention activity of US scientists and engineers in the academic sector: Comparisons with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Morgan, R. P., & Strickland, D. E. (2001). U.S. university research contributions to industry. Science and Public Policy, 28(2), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Patenting and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the history of the research corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mullen, P. D., & Ramirez, G. (2006). The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. National Academy of Engineering. (2003). The impact of academic research on industrial performance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  116. Nedeva, M., Georghiou, L., & Halfpenny, P. (1999). Benefactors or beneficiary: The role of industry in the support of university research equipment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Niosi, J. (2006). Introduction to the symposium: Universities as a source of commercial technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Pichini, S., Pulido, M., & García-Algar, O. (2005). Authorship in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: An author’s position and its value. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Pollak, K. I., & Niemann, Y. F. (1998). Black and white tokens in academia: A difference of chronic versus acute Distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 954–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Ponds, R. (2009). The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2008). The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39, 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Poyago‐Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Pravdić, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle and Nerve, 24(10), 1097–4598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Rennie, D., Flannagin, A., & Yank, Y. (2000). The contribution of authors. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Academic Labor, 51, 9–38.Google Scholar
  133. Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  137. Shrum, W., Chompalov, I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 681–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Shrum, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  139. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., 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, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Folleman, M. H., & Morgan, E. (2002). The ‘traffic’ in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(2), 282–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Stokes, T. D., & Hartley, J. A. (1989). Coauthorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19(1), 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  148. Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2011). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: Bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns. Scientometrics, 88(2), 471–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Woolley, R. (2011). Cross-sector research collaboration in Australia: The Cooperative Research Centres Program at the crossroads. Science & Public Policy, 38(2), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40(9), 1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Vasileiadou, E. (2012). Research teams as complex systems: Implications for knowledge management. Knowledge Management of Research Practice, 10(2), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wainwright, S. P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., & Cribb, A. (2006). Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(6), 1467–9566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Welsh, R., Glenn, 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, 1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Ynalvez, M., & Shrum, W. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40(2), 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Bozeman
    • 1
  • Daniel Fay
    • 1
  • Catherine P. Slade
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Regents University AugustaAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations