Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1201-1215

  Laursen, Keld ^a   Salter, Ammon ^b  

^a Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Industrial innovation; Innovative search; Openness; University industry links

Indexed keywords

DATABASE SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

INDUSTRIAL FIRMS; INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION; INNOVATION SEARCH;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 6944229615     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Feldman, M.P., 1994. R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics 76, 336-340.
2. Agrawal, A., Henderson, R., 2002. Putting patent in context: exploring knowledge transfer at MIT. Management Science 48, 44-60.
3. Arundel, A., Geuna, A., 2004. Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13, 559-580.
4. Bowman, E.H., Helfat, C.E., 2001. Does corporate strategy matter? Strategic Management Journal 22, 1-22.
5. Chesborough, H., 2003. Open Innovation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Christensen, J.F., Maskell, P. (Eds.), 2003. The Industrial Dynamics of the New Digital Economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
7. Cockburn, I.M., Henderson, R.M., 1998. Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behaviour and the organisation of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics XLVI, 157-181.
8. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1989. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99, 569-596.
9. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective of learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128-152.
10. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J., 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48, 1-23.
11. Di Gregorio, D., Shane, S., 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 32, 209-228.
12. DTI, 2003a. Third Community Innovation Survey. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
13. DTI, 2003b. Department of Trade and Industry Strategy: Analysis. The Government of the United Kingdom, London.
14. Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21, 1105-1121.
15. Greene, W.H., 1997. Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
16. Helfat, C., 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science 40, 1720-1747.
17. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting. Review of Economic and Statistics 80, 119-127.
18. Hicks, D., Breitzman, T., Olivastro, D., Hamilton, K., 2001. The changing composition of innovative activity in the US: a portrait based on patent analysis. Research Policy 30, 681-703.
19. Hicks, D., Katz, J.S., 1997. The changing shape of the British industrial research system. Steep Special Report 6, University of Sussex.
20. Jacobsson, S., 2002. Universities and industrial transformation: An interpretative and selective literature study with special emphasis on Sweden. Electronic working paper no. 81, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, Brighton, United Kingdom.
21. Jaffe, A., 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79, 957-970.
22. Kaiser, U., 2002. An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20, 747-774.
23. Katila, R., 2002. New product search over time: past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal 45, 995-1010.
24. Katila, R., Ahuja, G., 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behaviour and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45, 1183-1194.
25. Klevorick, A.K., Levin, R.C., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1995. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy 24, 185-205.
26. Koput, K.W., 1997. A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions. Organization Science 8, 528-542.
27. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S., 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783-820.
28. Link, A.L., Rees, J., 1990. Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics 2, 25-31.
29. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.), 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers, London.
30. Mahdi, S., 2003. Search strategy in product innovation process: theory and evidence from the evolution of the agrochemical lead discovery process. Industrial and Corporate Change 12, 235-270.
31. Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., 2002. Accounting for innovation and measuring innovativeness: an illustrative framework and an application. American Economic Review 92, 226-231.
32. Mansfield, E., 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20, 1-12.
33. Mansfield, E., 1998. Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Research Policy 26, 773-776.
34. March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science 2, 71-87.
35. Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U., 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27, 835-851.
36. Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C., 2003. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24, 133-146.
37. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A., 1980. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy 30, 99-119.
38. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., Olivastro, D., 1997. The increasing linkage between us technology and public science. Research Policy 26, 317-330.
39. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York.
40. Nelson, R.R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
41. Nerkar, A., Shane, S., 2003. When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1391-1411.
42. OECD, 1997. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: the 'Oslo Manual'. Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, Paris.
43. OECD, 1999. Technology and Industrial Scoreboard 1999: Benchmarking Knowledge-based Economies. OECD, Paris.
44. OECD, 2000. The Management of Science Systems. Science Technology Industry (STI). OECD, Paris.
45. OECD, 2002. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships. Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, Paris.
46. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., Powell, W.W., 2002. A comparison of US and European University-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science 48, 24-43.
47. Pavitt, K.L.R., 2001. Public policies to support basic research: what can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (and what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 761-779.
48. Salter, A., Martin, B.R., 2001. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy 30, 509-532.
49. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., Gassler, H., 2001. Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 255-269.
50. Shane, S., 2002. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science 48, 122-138.
51. Spencer, J.W., 2001. How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? a United States-Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal 44, 432-440.
52. Stephan, P.E., 1996. The Economics of Science. Journal of Economic Literature 34, 1199-1235.
53. Stockdale, B., 2002. UK Innovation Survey. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
54. Stuart, T., Podolny, J., 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 17, 21-38.
55. Teece, D., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15, 285-305.
56. Valentin, F., Jensen, R.L., 2002. Reaping the fruits of science. Economic Systems Research 14, 363-388.
57. von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
58. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Brewer, M., 1998. Intellectual capital and the birth of the US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88, 290-306.