Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature

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

Abstract

This study explores academic research on technology transfer (TT) and the related themes. The TT field has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years and has grown rapidly, resulting in a large body of knowledge. Using a bibliometric approach, this study reviews related research issues as well as their influence and connections and provides directions for future research. It uses Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science database that includes 3218 bibliographic references. Several bibliometric analysis techniques and a subsequent review of the content of the most relevant documents are adopted. The performance analysis provided an updated overview of the evolution of the TT literature from 1969 to 2018 and quantitatively identified the most active and influential journals, articles, authors, and organizations. The co-authorship network analysis allowed us to identify and visualize the structure of relations between authors as well as determine the collaboration patterns among them. On the basis of the information supplied by the co-authorship network, the main literature was reviewed to identify the current status and research trends related to TT, identifying five main research streams and related topics. The implications of the study’s findings and directions for future TT research are finally discussed to enhance our understanding of TT agents and issues and support further research in this field.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Keywords Plus is the result of Clarivate Analytics’ editorial expertise. Its editors review the titles of all bibliographic references and highlight additional relevant keywords not listed by the authors or publishers, which results in more precise searches.

  2. The first issue of Journal of Technology Transfer was published in 1977. Technovation began in 1981 and International Journal of Technology Management in 1986.

  3. This list is available to readers upon request.

  4. As the number of citations increase over an established threshold of citations, the network decreases and thereby the number of clusters and related articles in each cluster also fall. Notwithstanding this reduction, the main clusters remain but with fewer authors and articles in each of them.

  5. A complete list of authors can be made available upon request.

  6. For instance, in the thematic group identified as international TT, two close topics were identified: international joint venture and mergers and acquisitions. These subjects were finally renamed under a single sub-topic called international joint venture.

  7. A complete list of the articles included in each research stream and topic can be made available upon request.

References

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Infometrics, 5(4), 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6), 498–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89(3), 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apriliyanti, I. D., & Alon, I. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity. International Business Review, 26(5), 896–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalization of technology and its implications for developing countries: Windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 861–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: Review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7–8), 643–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier-Fuentes, F., Merigo, J. M., Amoros, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 15(2), 385–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(2), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organizational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1195–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P. E., III, Damanpour, F., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S. (2002). Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, D., & Benson, A. M. (2012). Overcoming knowledge stickiness in scientific knowledge transfer. Public Understanding of Science, 21(5), 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomström, M., & Sjöholm, F. (1999). Technology transfer and spillovers: Does local participation with multinationals matter? European Economic Review, 43(4–6), 915–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (1994). Evaluating government technology transfer: Early impacts of the cooperative technology paradigm. Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), 322–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 439–462.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An aproach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical a lication to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science ma ing analysis software tool. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609–1630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobo, M. J., Martinez, M. A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. F. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 80, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Dabic, M. (2006). The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs and local subsidiaries: A croatian illustration. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 100–111.

    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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 587–606.

    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. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    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, 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). The economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, F., Zhang, L., Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J. D. (1979). National economic resources and the production of research in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1989). Technology policy and economic performance Pinter. London: Publishers Great Britain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaviria-Marín, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 194–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (1993). Technology transfer: Toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 18(3–4), 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giunta, A., Pericoli, F. M., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 818–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg, H., & Greenaway, D. (2004). Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer, 19(2), 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45(2), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinzl, J., Kor, A., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2013). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 607–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C., Lu, L. Y., Liu, J. S., & Kondrashov, A. (2014). A literature review with citation analysis of technology transfer. In Management of engineering and technology (PICMET). 2014 Portl& international conference on IEEE.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). University–industry collaboration: careers and knowledge governance in hybrid organizational space. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2(1/2), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2002). The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102(6), 300–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Ecponomics, 20(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, K. (2002). Aiding the technology manager: A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation, 22(7), 427–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 543–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H., De Bruin, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, T. H. (2001). Parental supervision: The new paradigm for foreign direct investment and development. Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology-transfer and competitiveness—The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh–Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murgado-Armenteros, E. M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., & Cobo, M. J. (2015). Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis. Scientometrics, 102(1), 519–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29(12), 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naseer, M. M., & Mahmood, K. (2009). Use of bibliometrics in LIS research. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 19(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(10), 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noh, H., & Lee, S. (2017). Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: A quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 700–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (Vol. 5, pp. 9–24). International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

  • Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 2(4), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. a lied research in belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Malonet, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26(1), 17–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, M. (1992). European technology policy evolution: Convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation, 12(4), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saggi, K. (2002). Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer, 17(2), 191–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy, 35(6), 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation & entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraven, D. F., Hartmann, A., & Dewulf, G. P. (2015). Research orientations towards the ‘management’of infrastructure assets: An intellectual structure a roach. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(2), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 404–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 916–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50(9), 799813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G., Ringov, D., & Jensen, R. J. (2016). Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organization Science, 27(2), 304–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological knowledge. Economic Journal, 87(346), 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, A. A., & Mota, L. (2012). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links. Scientometrics, 93(3), 719–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric ma ing. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oorschot, J. A. W. H., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. M. (2018). A Bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., Jegak, U., & Abdullah, H. (2009). A review on the technology transfer models, knowledge-based and organizational learning models on technology transfer. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 551–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012a). Defining the concepts of technology and technology transfer: A literature analysis. International Business Research, 5(1), 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012b). The Theoretical perspectives underlying technology transfer: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), 277–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J.-Y., & Blomström, M. (1992). Foreign-investment and technology transfer—A simple-model. Europena Economc Review, 36(1), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. (2008). Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34(5), 882–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from Dr. Donald Siegel and anonymous referees on earlier versions of this paper. Any errors and misjudgements remain the responsibility of the authors.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation & Universities (MCIU/AEI/FEDER-UE) under the Grant Number RTI2018-097579-B-100, by UPV/EHU under the Grant Number GIU16/46, and by FESIDE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IK4-Tekniker Technology Centre, 20600, Eibar, Gipuzkoa, Spain

    Alejandro Bengoa

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Avda. Lehendakari Agirre, 83, 48015, Bilbao, Spain

    Amaia Maseda, Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio

Authors
  1. Alejandro Bengoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amaia Maseda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Txomin Iturralde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gloria Aparicio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amaia Maseda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bengoa, A., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T. et al. A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature. J Technol Transf 46, 1514–1550 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09774-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09774-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation