Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Heterogeneity in industry–university R&D collaboration and firm innovative performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

University–industry R&D collaboration is a key driver of participating firms’ technological capability. However, there is still debate on the determinants of a firm’s innovation performance, especially in relation to the characteristics of collaboration and organizational slack. We lay the foundation for our theoretical framework by establishing testable hypotheses on the effects of the characteristics of university–industry collaboration and organizational slack on the innovation performance of participating firms. Based on a panel data of 2914 firm-year cases for the top 200 U.S. R&D firms, estimates obtained from quantitative techniques produce consistent results and support our predictions. Collaboration breadth, network centrality, unabsorbed slack, collaboration experience and collaboration proactiveness are associated with innovation performance. Moreover, a firm’s higher absorbed slack exerts a negative influence on innovation performance. The managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Oliver (1990) summarizes the motivations of R&D collaborations as six contingencies: necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, and legitimacy.

  2. Numerous previous studies have examined why firms participate in UICs. See Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa (2015) for a review.

  3. Though this sampling strategy has mitigated the problem of selection bias to some degree, it cannot be entirely ruled out. For example, firms with more R&D can select a more intensive academic linkage. Thus, we should interpret the estimated positive effects of academic linkage on firm innovations, if any, in a more conservative manner.

  4. There are 2,836,700 scientific papers written by one or more of the top 110 US universities and 238,277 by the top 200 US R&D firms.

References

  • Adams, J. D., & Clemnons, J. R. (2008). Industry–University cooperative research centers. NBER Working Paper Series, http://www.nber-org/papers/w14575.

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal,22, 197–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal,22(6–7), 521–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creative in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Oxford: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaldoss, W., & Staelin, R. (2010). Cross-function and same-function alliances: How does alliance structure affect the behavior of partnering firms? Management Science,56(2), 302–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, J., Mulotte, L., & Ren, C. R. (2016). Does experience imply learning? Strategic Management Journal,37(7), 1395–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankrah, S., & AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management,31(3), 387–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science,18(3), 337–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J., Pardo, R., & Rama, R. (2014). Not searching, but finding: How innovation shapes perceptions about universities and public research organisations. Journal of Technology Transfer,39(3), 454–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect firm’s innovative performance? The role of “pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field. Research Policy,38, 756–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banal-Estanol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy,44, 1160–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics,52(3), 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,22(8–9), 1237–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belschak, F. D., Hartog, D. N. D., & Fay, D. (2010). Exploring positive, negative and context-dependent aspects of proactive behaviours at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,83, 267–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer,26(1–2), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaven, N. S. (2011). USPTO Patent and Citation Data. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:1902.1/16412.

  • Boardman, P. G. (2009). Government centrality to university–industry interactions: University research centers and the university involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy,38(10), 1505–1516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. G., & Ponomariov, B. I. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. G., & Ponomariov, B. I. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation,29(2), 142–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review,6(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., & Singh, J. V. (1983). Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. Academy of Management Proceedings,43, 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, F. E. (2002). Organizational slack and corporate greening: Broadening the debate. British Journal of Management,13(4), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, F. E., Rostami, M., & Steel, P. (2010). Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational performance and innovation. Journal of Business Research,63(11), 1179–1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy,33(4), 599–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1982). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., & Goldberger, J. R. (2002). Gender and agricultural science: Evidence from two surveys of land-grant scientists. Rural Sociology,67(1), 24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaert, J., Landoni, P., Looy, B. V., & Verganti, R. (2015). Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches. Research Policy,44(4), 990–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. J., Huang, Y. F., & Lin, B. W. (2012). How firms innovate through R&D internationalization? An S-curve hypothesis. Research Policy,41(9), 1544–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. R., Kan, K., & Tung, I. H. (2016). Scientific linkages and firm productivity: Panel data evidence from Taiwanese electronics firms. Research Policy,45(7), 1449–1459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauss, T., & Kesting, T. (2017). How businesses should govern knowledge-intensive collaborations with universities: An empirical investigation of university professors. Industrial Marketing Management,62, 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,26(3), 435–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal,39(5), 1120–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, D., & Rao, C. (2002). Harnessing managerial knowledge to implement product-line extensions: How do mutual fund families allocate portfolio managers to old and new funds? Academy of Management Journal,45(3), 609–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G., & Lokshin, B. (2011). Determinants of alliance portfolio complexity and its effect on innovative performance of companies. Journal of Product Innovation Management,28(4), 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S., & Snycerski, S. (2013). Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Management Decision,51(3), 524–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, B. Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry-academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of korea as a latecomer in knowledge. Research Policy,39(5), 625–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management,22(3), 238–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faria, P., Lima, F., & Santos, F. (2010). Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners. Research Policy,39, 1082–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Desrocher, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University. Minerva,42(2), 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fierro, G. (2014). “Processing USPTO patent data”, Coleman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership, Berkeley, CA. Available at https://funginstitute.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/patentprocessor.pdf. Accessed March, 2018.

  • Fox, M. F., & Ferri, V. C. (1992). Women, men, and their attributions for success in academe. Social Psychology Quarterly,55(3), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing,17, 577–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., Morisson, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy,39(6), 748–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies,41, 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal,14(5), 371–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. C., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics,32(1), 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Hall, B., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica,52(4), 909–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J., Ramlogan, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2012). Innovation and university collaboration: Paradox and complexity within the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics,36(3), 703–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. F., & Chen, C. J. (2010). The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation,30(7–8), 420–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. F., & Yu, C. M. (2011). The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer,36(4), 383–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review,91(1), 240–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., Tan, J., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Incumbent firm innovation in emerging fields: Evidence from the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal,32(1), 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M. P., Das, S. R., & Mouri, N. (2015). Antecedents of Innovativeness in Technology-Based Services (TBS): Peering into the Black Box of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Decision Science,46(2), 306–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M., Wang, C., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhang, M. (2015). Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in china: The role of region-specific institutions. Research Policy,44(3), 803–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,30(5), 791–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D. J., & Rice, M. P. (2002). Advantage beyond founding: The strategic use of technologies. Journal of Business Venturing,17(1), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kim, H., & Lee, P. M. (2008). Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science,19(3), 404–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics,14(4), 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: The moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies. Journal of Technology Transfer,43(6), 1696–1724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H.-C., & Weng, C. S. (2014). Accessing external technological knowledge for technological development: When technological knowledge distance meets slack resources. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,61(1), 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal,22(6–7), 615–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. Y. (2014). Effects on diversity of R&D sources and human capital on industrial performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,85, 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. Y. (2017). Balancing industry collaboration and academic innovation: The contingent role of collaboration-specific attributes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,123, 216–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, E., & Nohria, N. (2005). Reducing slack: The performance consequences of downsizing by large industrial firms. Strategic Management Journal,26(12), 1087–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahr, D., & Lievens, A. (2012). Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research Policy,41(1), 167–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malen, J., & Vaaler, P. M. (2017). Organizational slack, national institutions and innovation effort around the world. Journal of World Business,52(6), 782–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy,32(8), 1481–1499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, A. (2007). qcount: Stata program to fit quantile regression models for count data. Statistical Software Components S456714, Boston College Department of Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456714.html.

  • Miranda, A. (2008). Planned fertility and family background: A quantile regression for count analysis. Journal of Population Economics,21(1), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monjon, S., & Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21, 1255–1270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal,39(5), 1245–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganisational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review,15, 241–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,34(7), 994–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research Policy,32(6), 1081–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters,5(4), 377–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management,37(4), 1108–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. V. (2001). The resource-based view and international business. Journal of Management,27(6), 803–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phibin, S. (2008). Process model for university–industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management,11, 488–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, L. F., Ewing, M. T., & Berthon, P. R. (2002). Proactive behaviour and industrial salesforce performance. Industrial Marketing Management,31(8), 639–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prime, R. L., & Bulter, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “View” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review,26(1), 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puffal, D. P., & Teixeira, R. (2014). Effects of university–industry interaction on firm’s innovation: Empirical evidence from Brazilian firms. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management,13(1), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rank, O. N., & Strenge, M. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation as a driver of brokerage in external networks: Exploring the effects of risk taking, proactivity, and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1998). The impact of the multi-divisional structure on organizational slack: The contingency of diversification strategy. British Journal of Management,9(3), 211–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, N. B., & Bielous, G. D. (2017). Exploring the impact of university–industry linkages on firms’ innovation: Empirical evidence from Mexico. In L. Al-Hakim, X. Wu, A. Koronios, & Y. Shou (Eds.), Handbook of research on driving competitive advantage through sustainable, lean, and disruptive innovation. Penn: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. (2011). Indian pharmaceutical patent grants. hdl:1902.1/16272, Harvard Dataverse, V2, UNF:5:OEZo8XXGjBczFU4H + 5XqbQ ==.

  • Sampson, R. C. (2004). Organizational choice in R&D alliances: Knowledge-based and transaction cost perspectives. Managerial and Decision Economics,25(6–7), 421–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M., Wolf, G., Chase, R., & Tansik, D. (1988). Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review,13, 601–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. V. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal,29, 562–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. R., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,48(2), 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,17, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. (2003). Curvilinear relationship between organizational slack and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese state enterprises. European Management Journal,21(6), 740–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Z., Kreiser, P. W., Marino, L., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Exploring proactiveness as a moderator in the process of perceiving industrial munificence: A field study of SMEs in four countries. Journal of Small Business Management,48(2), 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal,24(13), 1249–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, M. C., & Thursby, J. G. (2002). Who Is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science,48(1), 90–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, B. B., & Steensma, H. K. (1995). Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities: A cognitive modeling perspective. Strategic Management Journal,16(S1), 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Un, C. A., & Asakawa, K. (2015). Types of R&D collaborations and process innovation: The benefit of collaborating upstream in the knowledge chain. Journal of Product Innovation Management,32(1), 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Un, C. A., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,27(5), 673–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2008). The innovation journey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy,37(8), 1255–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanacker, T., Collewaert, V., & Zahra, S. A. (2017). Slack resources, firm performance, and the institutional context: Evidence from privately held European firms. Strategic Management Journal,38(6), 1305–1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal,51(1), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal,49(4), 819–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal,57(2), 484–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalley, A., & Hicks, J. (2014). Spending wisely? How resources affect knowledge production in universities. Economic Inquiry,52(1), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma, E. (2017). How and when do firms translate slack into better performance. The British Accounting Review,49(5), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woerter, M. (2012). Technological proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer,37, 828–866.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No. MOST 107-2410-H-180-009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Information, National Open University, 172, Chung-Cheng Road, Lu-Chow District, New Taipei City, 247, Taiwan, ROC

    Jun-You Lin

  2. Department of Economics, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, ROC

    Chih-Hai Yang

Authors
  1. Jun-You Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chih-Hai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun-You Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, JY., Yang, CH. Heterogeneity in industry–university R&D collaboration and firm innovative performance. Scientometrics 124, 1–25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03436-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03436-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation