Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Knowledge Valorization in the Public R&D Sector: a Survey and a PLS-SEM Approach

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to identify the weaknesses that prevent the transfer of public R&D results in the socio-economic sphere. A survey was addressed to 205 scientific researchers working in different fields of R&D in Tunisia.  A partial least squares structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) was adapted to analyze the data collected from a questionnaire survey administered to people attached to the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MESRS) through universities, laboratories, and research structures. The results show many administrative, human, and financial difficulties that complicate the valorization process of scientific knowledge. R&D results cannot be exploited by companies due to the inconsistency between the results of public R&D and the real needs of the industry and society. The current policy of encouraging public and private partnerships in R&D has shown its ineffectiveness. The national innovation and research system must be completely revised and treated as a productive sector and not as a tool.

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

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References 

  • Ala, S., Vilarinho, P., & Portugal, C. (2014). Knowledge valorization and the Paradox: a case study. In Recent Advances in Applied Economics: 6th International Conference on Applied Economics, Business and Development (AEBD'14). European Eds. Mastorakis, Nikos E., Panos M. Pardalos and Michael N. Katehakis. Lisbon: WSEAS Press (pp. 113–119).

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention in: Richard R. Nelson (Ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity.

  • Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: a review of the literature. Research, evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia, D., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. (2021a). Opening the black box of university Proof-of-Concept programs: Project and team-based determinants of research commercialization outcomes. Technovation, 108, 102334.

  • Battaglia, D., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. (2021b). The role of Proof-of-Concept programs in facilitating the commercialization of research-based inventions. Research Policy, 50(6), 104268.

  • Bekkers, R & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?, Research Policy, Elsevier, 37(10), 1837-1853, December.

  • Belay, D. L., Owen, P. J., & Livingston, P. M. (2020). Do successful Ph.D. outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability? PLoS One, 15(8): e0236327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.Pone.0236327

  • Belenzon, S., & Cioaca, L. C. (2021). “Guaranteed Markets and Corporate Scientific Research,” NBER Working Papers 28644, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  • Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, L. (2006). Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers? Evidence from Japan’s FDI in the United States. Journal of International economics, 68(2), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science–industry collaborations: reassembling the pieces of the puzzle Researchpolicy, 32(6), 887–908.

  • Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp 655–690): Springer.

  • Chu, A. C., Leung, C. K., & Tang, E. (2012). Intellectual property rights, technical progress, and the volatility of economic growth. Journal of Macroeconomics, 34(3), 749–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2011). The interaction between public and private R&D expenditure and national productivity. Prometheus, 29(2), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research policy, 29(4–5), 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, L., & Kirk, D. (2007). University-industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draghici, A., Ivascu, L., Mateescu, A., & Draghici, G. (2017). A proposed model for measuring performance of the university-industry collaboration in open innovation. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 6, issue.

  • Duranton, G. (1999). Distance, land, and proximity: Economic analysis and the evolution of cities. Environment and Planning, 31(12), 2169–2188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Goktepe-Hulten, D. (2010). Maybe they can? University technology transfer offices as regional growth engines. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(1–2), 166–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. A. (1995). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations.

  • Fini, R., Perkmann, M., & Michael Ross, J. (2021). Attention to explore: the effect of academic entrepreneurship on the production of scientific knowledge. Organization Science.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy, 31(6), 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Morales, V. J., Matías-Reche, F., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2011). Influence of internal communication on technological proactivity, organizational learning, and organizational innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 150–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares: Regression & structural equation models. Statistical Associates Blue Book Series; Asheboro: Statistical Associates Publishers.

  • Giannopoulou, E., & baluster, P. J., & Pénin, J. (2019). Same but different? Research and technology organizations, universities and the innovation activities of firms. Research Policy, 48(1), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginarte, J. C., & Park, W. G. (1997). Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study. Research policy, 26(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. E., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and engineering ethics, 11(4), 553–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Cantner, U. (2012). Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 628–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, J., Salazar, I., & Vargas, P. (2020). The role of extramural R&D and scientific knowledge in creating high novelty innovations: An examination of manufacturing and service firms in Spain. Research Policy, 49(8), 104030.

  • Goolsbee, A. (1998). Has the government R&D policy mainly benefited scientists and engineers? (No. w6532). National bureau of Economic Research.

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and innovation, 20(8), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). "R&D and Productivity Growth: Panel Data Analysis of 16 OECD Countries," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, 2001(2), 103–126.

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The journal of technology transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in the UK and Germany. Research policy, 40(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117, 442–458.

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 414–433.

  • Hallonsten, O. (2017). The third sector of R&D: literature review, basic analysis, and research agenda. Prometheus, 35(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitor, M., & Horta, H. (2014). Democratizing higher education and access to science: The Portuguese reform 2006–2010. Higher Education Policy, 27(2), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.

  • Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: Updated guidelines. Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (pp. 19–39). Springer.

  • Hillerbrand, R., & Werker, C. (2019). Values in university–industry collaborations: the case of academics working at Universities of Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(6), 1633–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huenneke, L. F., Stearns, D. M., Martinez, J. D., & Laurila, K. (2017). Key strategies for building research capacity of university faculty members. Innovative higher education, 42(5), 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huergo, E., Trenado, M., & Ubierna, A. (2016). The impact of public support on firm propensity to engage in R&D: Spanish experience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 206–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivascu, L., Cirjaliu, B., & Draghici, A. (2016). Business model for the university-industry collaboration in open innovation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 674–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K., & Warren, P. (2001). The use of options theory to value research in the service sector. R&D Management, 31(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. The National Academy of Science, USA.

  • Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research policy, 25(6), 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Londono, J. C., Davies, K., & Elms, J. (2017). Extending the theory of planned behavior to examine the role of anticipated negative emotions on channel intention: The case of an embarrassing product. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 36, 8–20.

  • McComas, K. A. (2012). Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(4), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2011). Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk analysis: An International Journal, 31(11), 1749–1761.

  • Melnychuk, M. C., Kurota, H., Mace, P. M. et al. (2021). Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries. Nature Sustainability, 4, 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00668-1

  • Min, S., Kim, J., & Sawng, Y. W. (2020). The effect of innovation network size and public R&D investment on regional innovation efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119998.

  • Mowery, D. C., & Shane, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v–ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2021). The impact of public funding on science valorisation: An analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme. Research Policy, 50(6), 104211.

  • Nelson, R. R., & Phelps, E. S. (1966). Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. The American economic review, 56(1/2), 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD). (2013). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2013: Innovation for growth.

  • Park, W. G., & Lippoldt, D. C. (2005). International licensing and the strengthening of intellectual property rights in developing countries during the 1990s. OECD Economic Studies, 2005(1), 7–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., & Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, E. B., & Fernandes, G. (2021a). Collaborative R&D the key cooperation domain for university industry Partnerships Sustainability – Position Paper.

  • Pinto, E. B., & Fernandes, G. (2021b). Collaborative R&D the key cooperation domain for university-industry partnerships sustainability–position paper. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small business economics, 21(4), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2000). “Measuring the “ideas” production function: evidence from international patent output,” NBER working papers 7891, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  • Ramzi, T., & Salah, A. B. (2018). The determinants of innovation capacity in the less innovative countries in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 526–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramzi, T., & Salah, A. B. (2018). The Determinants of Innovation Capacity in the Less Innovative Countries in the Euro-Mediterranean Region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 9(2), 526–543, June.

  • Rip, A. (2011). The future of research universities. Prometheus, 29(4), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roldán, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares. In Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Philadelphia: IGI Global, p. 193.

  • Romer, P. M., (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, 98(5), 71-102, October.

  • Schiavone, F., Romano, M., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Does location in a science park really matter for firms’ intellectual capital performance? Journal of Intellectual Capital.

  • Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2013). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and integration of competing models.

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie, Paris. Première traductionfrançaisepubliéeen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). Theorie der WirtschaftlichenEntwicklung. Dunker & Humblot. The theory of economic development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Chanda, A., D'netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251.

  • Sherwood, A. L., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Knowledge acquisition in university–industry alliances: An empirical investigation from a learning theory perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 162–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur´s Quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. The Brookings Institution, Washington.

  • Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.

  • Thompson, B., O’Connell, M., Loest, H., Anderson, J., & Westcott, R. (2013). Understanding and reducing obstacles in a collaboration between a minority institution and a cancer center. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 24, 1648–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.

  • Veugelers, R., & Del Rey, E. (2014). The contribution of universities to innovation, (regional) growth and employment (No. 18). EENEE analytical report.

  • Wolff, M. F. (1986). Managers at work: Quality/process control: What R&D can do. Research Management, 29(1), 9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yongabo, P., & Göransson, B. (2020). Constructing the national innovation system in Rwanda: Efforts and challenges. Innovation and Development, 1–22.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Committee of State Controllers, Government presidency, Tunis, Tunisia

    Trabelsi Ramzi

  2. Laboratory of Economics and Applied Finance (L.E.F.A), IHEC Carthage, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia

    Kallal Rahim

  3. Ministry of Higher Education, DGVR, Tunis, Tunisia

    Maher Skhiri

Authors
  1. Trabelsi Ramzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kallal Rahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maher Skhiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trabelsi Ramzi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Survey results (part 1)
Full size table
Table 5 Survey results (part 1)
Full size table
Table 6 Survey results (part 1)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramzi, T., Rahim, K. & Skhiri, M. Scientific Knowledge Valorization in the Public R&D Sector: a Survey and a PLS-SEM Approach. J Knowl Econ 14, 226–254 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00870-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00870-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation