Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas such as the bioeconomy is strongly challenged. The related challenges are attained to the differences in perceptions, objectives, values and motivations between academic scientists and firms stemming from different disciplines and industries. Group concept mapping, an exploratory and bottom-up participatory method that brings together stakeholders to represent their collective perceptions, was therefore applied to investigate challenges in technology transfer. Using this approach, this study is able to offer the first overview of factors affecting technology transfer in the bioeconomy through the aggregate representation of the perceptions of different stakeholder groups (i.e. academic scientists, technology transfer facilitators, and firms/entrepreneurs). These factors are visualized in form of maps by means of multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses. Furthermore, a quantitative ranking of the factors is used to demonstrate the degree to which the importance of the perceived factors differs across stakeholder groups. Factors related to interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations between academics and firms as well as those tied to financial issues or consumer acceptance are assigned the highest level of relative importance. However, these factors are also characterized by the lowest level of relative coherence across key stakeholders. Finally, managerial and policy recommendations for cultivating successful technology transfer in the context of other interdisciplinary and emerging knowledge areas are suggested.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation,33(2), 50–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Wright, M. (2014). Technology transfer in a global economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer,39(3), 301–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? The Academy of Management Perspectives,27(2), 138–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, S., Cloutier, L. M., & Bröring, S. (2018). Collective stakeholder representations and perceptions of drivers of novel biomass-based value chains. Journal of Cleaner Production,200, 231–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, S., Iwelunmor, J., Plange-Rhule, J., Gyamfi, J., Quakyi, N. K., Ntim, M., et al. (2017). Sustaining nurse-led task-shifting strategies for hypertension control: A concept mapping study to inform evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing,00, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehlje, M., & Bröring, S. (2011). The increasing multifunctionality of agricultural raw materials: Three dilemmas for innovation and adoption. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,14(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borge, L., & Bröring, S. (2017). Exploring effectiveness of technology transfer in interdisciplinary settings: The case of the bioeconomy. Creativity and Innovation Management,26(3), 311–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy,29(4–5), 627–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S. & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer, Working Paper 13-10, University of North Carolina.

  • Bröring, S., Cloutier, L. M., & Leker, J. (2006). The front end of innovation in an era of industry convergence—the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. R&D Management Journal,36(5), 487–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier, L. M., Cueille, S., & Recasens, G. (2017). Entrepreneurs’ perspectives on the structuring phase of the entrepreneurial team. In C. Ben-Hafaïedh & T. M. Cooney (Eds.), Research handbook on entrepreneurial teams: Theory and practice (pp. 96–120). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier, L. M., & Spooner, M. P. (2016). Closing gaps in professional service delivery processes: A mixed method-based analysis of clinical research project budget management. In C. DiMauro, A. Ancarani, & G. Vastag (Eds.), Research in the decision sciences for the service economy (pp. 33–52). New York, NY: Pearson Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Concept System Incorporated [computer software] (2017).

  • Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2006). The public as a limit to technology transfer: the influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. The Journal of Technology Transfer,31(6), 629–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(4), 923–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Gunther, R. E. (2004). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies,49(8), 1351–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. (2010). Micro-foundations for management research: What, why, and whither? Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa,13(42), 11–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. The Academy of Management Perspectives,27(2), 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management,19(2), 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, B., Sick, N., & Bröring, S. (2015). The emerging research landscape on bioeconomy: What has been done so far and what is essential from a technology and innovation management perspective? Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies,29, 308–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groen, A. J., & Walsh, S. T. (2013). Introduction to the field of emerging technology management. Creativity and Innovation Management,22(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review,32(4), 1199–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly,23(1), 97–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S.-C., & Chu, Y.-Y. (2006). Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: Challenges for the public sector. Technovation,26(1), 104–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods,5(4), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, K. A., Houtveen, J. H., Tak, L. M., Bonvanie, I. J., Scholtalbers, A., van Gils, A., et al. (2017). A concept mapping study on perpetuating factors of functional somatic symptoms from clinicians’ perspective. General Hospital Psychiatry,44, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. B., Quinn, E., Sitaker, M., Ammerman, A., Byker, C., Dean, W., et al. (2014). Developing an agenda for research about policies to improve access to healthy foods in rural communities: a concept mapping study. BMC Public Health,14(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klenk, N. L., & Hickey, G. M. (2012). Improving the social robustness of research networks for sustainable natural resource management: Results of a Delphi study in Canada. Science and Public Policy,39(3), 357–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Number 07–011 in Sage University Paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy,35(10), 1586–1598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maciejczak, M. (2017). Bioeconomy as a complex adaptive system of sustainable development. Marketing,2(2), 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maine, E., Thomas, V. J., & Utterback, J. (2014). Radical innovation from the confluence of technologies: Innovation management strategies for the emerging nanobiotechnology industry. Special Issue on Emergence of Technologies: Methods and Tools for Management,32, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer,37(3), 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030 designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,2(2), 77–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics,81(3), 719–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusions of innovations (5th ed., p. 551). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas, S. R. (2005). Concept mapping as a technique for program theory development. An illustration using family support programs. American Journal of Evaluation,26(3), 389–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas, S. R., & Kane, M. (2012). Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning,35(2), 236–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy,44(10), 1827–1843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy,31(7), 1163–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröter, D. C., Coryn, C. L. S., Cullen, A., Robertson, K. N., & Alyami, M. (2012). Using concept mapping for planning and evaluation of a statewide energy efficiency initiative. Energy Efficiency,5(3), 365–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütte, G. (2017). What kind of innovation policy does the bioeconomy need? New Biotechnology,40(A), 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,21(1–2), 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stack-Cutler, H., Schnirer, L., & Dare, L. (2017). Engaging populations living with vulnerable conditions in community-based research: A concept mapping approach to understanding positive practices. Journal of Community Psychology,45(5), 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolk-Vos, A. C., van de Klundert, J. J., Maijers, N., Zijlmans, B. L. M., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2017). Multi-stakeholder perspectives in defining health-services quality in cataract care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care,29(4), 470–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Special Issue: Concept Mapping for Evaluation and Planning,12, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M. K., & Cabrera, D. (2005). The complexity of concept mapping for policy analysis. Emergence: Complexity And Organization,7(1), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Engen-Verheul, M. M., Peek, N., Haafkens, J. A., Joukes, E., Vromen, T., Jaspers, M. W. M., et al. (2017). What is needed to implement a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits to improve care quality: A concept mapping study among cardiac rehabilitation teams. International Journal of Medical Informatics,97, 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vives-Cases, C., Goicolea, I., Hernández, A., Sanz-Barbero, B., Davó-Blanes, M., & La Parra-Casado, D. (2017). Priorities and strategies for improving Roma women’s access to primary health care services in cases on intimate partner violence: A concept mapping study. International Journal for Equity in Health,16(1), 96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific activities of the Bioeconomy Science Center were financially supported by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Research within the framework of the NRW Strategieprojekt BioSC (No. 313/323-400-002 13). Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Dr. Nina Preschitschek for her support and advice in the first phases of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Food and Resource Economics (ILR), Chair for Technology and Innovation Management in Agribusiness, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Meckenheimer Allee 174, 53115, Bonn, Germany

    Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring

  2. Bioeconomy Science Center (BioSC), c/o Research Center Juelich, 52425, Juelich, Germany

    Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring

Authors
  1. Laura Borge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Bröring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Borge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borge, L., Bröring, S. What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy. J Technol Transf 45, 430–460 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9702-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9702-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation