Mission impossible? Institutional barriers to the diffusion of the 'third academic mission' at German universities

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 25, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 18-33

  Krücken, Georg ^a  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Diffusion; Institutional barriers; Technology transfer; Third academic mission; Transfer offices; Universities

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INDUSTRY; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

THIRD ACADEMIC MISSION; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATION;

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 0037211108     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2003.003087     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Etzkowitz H., Webster, A. and Healey, P. (1998) 'Introduction' in H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, and P. Healey (Eds.) Capitalizing Knowledge. New Intersections of Industry and Academia, State University of New Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-17.
2. For a broad and balance view of the benefits and risks, see an historical analysis of American universities by Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. (1994) 'American universities and technical advance in industry', Research Policy, Vol. 23, pp.323-348
3. and the discussion of current practices in the USA. Great Britain, Canada and Australia by Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997) Academic Capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD and London.
4. For a complete project report (in German) see www.bomes.uni-bielefeld.de/kruecken/lfp
5. Abramson, H.N., Encarnação, J., Reid, P.P. and Schmoch, U. (Eds) (1997) Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany. Lessons and Perspectives, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p.348. Obviously, the different legal structures in Germany and the USA reflect broader cultural characteristics. The authors, for example, suggest that the "cultural environment in Germany is characterised by a limited entrepreneurial spirit. This situation is due to a low-risk mentality on the individual and societal levels" (pp.347-8). Though this might be true, these issues are beyond the scope of this paper.
6. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1997) 'Institutionalized organizations: formal structures as myth and ceremony', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp.340-363.
7. On organisational myths in general see [5]. For different aspects of the 'von Humboldt' myth in German academia see Ash, M. (Ed.) (1997) German Universities Past and Future. Crisis or Renewal?, Berghan Books, New York, NY and Oxford.
8. Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (Eds.) (1986) The Thinking Organizations, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
9. Clark, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Pergamon, Surrey.
10. See, for example, the widely known book by Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
11. Granovetter, M. (1985) 'Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp.481-510
12. Powell, W.W. (1990) 'Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organizations' in L.L. Cummings and B. Shaw (Eds) Research in Organizationl Behaviour, Vol. 12 JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp.295-336.
13. Berneman, L. P. and Denis, K.A. (1998) 'Evolution of academic-industry transfer in the USA', Industry and Higher Education, August, pp. 202-205.
14. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) 'The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective nationality in organizational fields', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp.147-160.