Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 503–524 | Cite as

Who instigates university–industry collaborations? University scientists versus firm employees

  • Rajeev K. Goel
  • Devrim Göktepe-Hultén
  • Christoph GrimpeEmail author
Article

Abstract

While evidence on the causes and effects of university–industry interaction is abundant, little is known about how, and particularly by whom, such interaction is instigated in the first place and subsequently managed. In this paper, we investigate which mode of collaboration (joint research, contract research, consulting, in-licensing, or informal contacts) is more likely to be initiated and managed by firm employees versus by university scientists. Moreover, we are interested in the differences between small and large firms to see whether initiation and management are affected by firm size. Using a sample of 833 German manufacturing firms, our results indicate that university scientists typically start collaborations with industry, while firm employees would take over the management of projects. Results vary markedly between small and large firms, with university scientists having somewhat higher difficulties initiating collaborations with large firms than with small firms.

Keywords

University–industry collaboration Initiation Management Firm size 

JEL Classifications

L24 O31 L26 

References

  1. Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. M., & Slade, C. P. (2016). Managing Institutional research advancement: Implications from a university faculty time allocation study. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonelli, C., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Aschhoff, B. (2010). Who gets the money? The dynamics of R&D project subsidies in Germany. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 230(5), 522–546.Google Scholar
  5. Aschhoff, B., & Grimpe, C. (2014). Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology. Resarch Policy, 43, 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Athey, S., & Stern, S. (1998). An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. NBER working paper: Boston.Google Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2015). University patenting in Europe. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship (pp. 188–217). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsh, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2014). ‘A jack of all trades’: The role of pis in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39, 858–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Zuniga, M. P. (2008). In Search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness of research and innovation policies among European Union Countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cunningham, J. A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2016). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: The factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 778–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Pellens, M. (2015a). Access to research inputs: Open science versus the entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1050–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Toole, A. A. (2015b). Delay and secrecy: Does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? Industrial and Corporate Change, 24, 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Erez, M., & Shneorson, Z. (1980). Personality types and motivational characteristics of academics versus professionals in industry in the same occupational discipline. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faria, J. R. (2005). The games academics play: Editors versus authors. Bulletin of Economic Research, 57, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2003). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of universityindustry collaboration. SPRU electronic working paper series: Brighton.Google Scholar
  30. Franzoni, C. (2009). Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems? Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 671–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goel, R. K., & Faria, J. R. (2010). Returns to networking in academia. Netnomics, 11, 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goel, R. K., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2013). Industrial interactions and academic patenting: Evidence from German scientists. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 22, 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goel, R. K., & Grimpe, C. (2013). Active versus passive academic networking: Evidence from micro-level data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 116–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goel, R. K., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2008). Academic inventors and research groups: Entrepreneurial cultures at universities. Science and Public Policy, 35, 657–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grimpe, C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars can’t be choosers? Research Policy, 41, 1448–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2009). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries. Research Policy, 38, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 97(5), 957–970.Google Scholar
  42. Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jensen, R., Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2010). Universityindustry spillovers, government funding, and industrial consulting. NBER working paper: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Juster, F. T., & Stafford, F. P. (1991). The allocation of time: Empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 29(2), 471–522.Google Scholar
  45. Köhler, C., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2012). Selective search, sectoral patterns, and the impact on product innovation performance. Research Policy, 41(8), 1344–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lam, A. (2015). Academic scientists and knowledge commercialization: Self-determination and diverse motivations. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 173–187). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Laperche, B., & Liu, Z. (2013). Smes and knowledge-capital formation in innovation networks: A review of literature. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What type of firms use universities as a source of innovation. Resarch Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
  51. Libaers, D. P. (2012). Time allocation decisions of academic scientists and their impact on technology commercialization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quaterly, 34, 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Muscio, A., & Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived obstacles to university–industry collaboration: Results from a qualitative survey of Italian academic departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), 410–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J. A., Mangematin, V., & O’Reilly, P. (2015). Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning, 48, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2012). How to create productive partnerships with universities. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 79–88.Google Scholar
  61. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reinganum, J. F. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73, 741–748.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Santaro, M. D., & Chakrabati, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in university–industry interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. E. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  67. Siegel, D., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steinmo, M. (2015). Collaboration for innovation: A case study on how social capital mitigates collaborative challenges in university–industry research alliances. Industry and Innovation, 22(7), 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vahter, P., Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2014). Openness and innovation performance: Are small firms different? Industry and Innovation, 21(7–8), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of Innovation and Organizational EconomicsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations