Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 617-636

  Nilsson, Anna S ^a   Rickne, Annika ^b,c   Bengtsson, Lars ^b,d  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^d BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academia; Commercialization; Industry; Stem cell research; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIA; ACADEMIC RESEARCH; COMMERCIALIZATION; EMPIRICAL DATA; MULTIPLE CHANNELS; POLICY IMPLICATIONS; STEM CELL RESEARCH; UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP;

INDUSTRY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; PUBLIC POLICY; STEM CELLS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

RESEARCH;

EID: 78649316795     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9124-4     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: SAGE Publications.
2. Audretsch, D., Aldridge, T. & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship, paper prepared for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, March 29th.
3. Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual tramework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175-188. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-005-5029-z.
4. Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69-89. doi: 10. 1287/orsc. 1070. 0295.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
6. Burt, R. (1992). The social structure of competition. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations-structure, form, and action (pp. 57-91). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer offices in the UK: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2005. 01. 007.
8. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, Supplement, 94, 95-120.
9. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design-qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: 10. 2307/258557.
11. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
12. Elfenbein, D. (2005). Publications, patents, and the market for University inventions. NBER conference April 1, 2005, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
13. Enerbäck, L., & Lindsten, J. (2002). Kartläggning av stamcellsforskning i Sverige. (In English: A survey of Swedish stem cell research.) A report to the Swedish Research Council.
14. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks. Science & Public Policy, 29(2), 115-128. doi: 10. 3152/147154302781781056.
15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1999). The future location of research and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 111-123. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1007807302841.
16. Geiger, R. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since world war II. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 101-113. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-005-5016-4.
18. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
19. Jones, C., Herterly, W., & Borgatti, S. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945. doi: 10. 2307/259249.
20. Lester, R. (2005). Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies. MIT Industrial Performance Center Working Paper 05-010, December 13.
21. Louis, K., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., & Stoto, M. (1998). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131. doi: 10. 2307/2392988.
22. Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. (2005). The roles of research at universities and public labs in economic catch-up. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM) Working Paper Series, Pisa.
23. Melese, T. (2006). Building and managing corporate alliances in an academic medical center. Research Management Review, 15, 1-9.
24. Mowery, D. (2005). The Bayh-Dole act and high-technology entrepreneurship in US universities: Chicken, egg or something else? In G. Libecap (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process design, and intellectual property (pp. 39-68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
25. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. doi: 10. 2307/259373.
26. Nilsson, A. (2001). Interaction between researchers, firm managers and venture capitalists: The essence of biotechnology business, Doctoral thesis, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
27. O'Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653-666. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-007-9060-0.
28. OECD. (2003). Turning science into business-patenting and licensing at public research organizations. Paris: OECD Publications.
29. Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Final Draft, April 28.
30. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L., & Owen-Smith, J. (1999). Network position and sirm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 129-159.
31. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
32. Rickne, A., & Sandström, A. (2009) Swedish possibilities within Tissue Engineering & Regenerative Medicine, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), Stockholm.
33. Schacht, W. (2003). Technology transfer: Use of federally funded research and development. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.
34. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(2), 151-170.
35. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (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. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.
36. 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. doi: 10. 1093/oxrep/grm036.
37. Sutz, J. (1997). The new role of the university in the productive sector. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Universities and the global knowledge economy (pp. 11-20). London: Pinter.
38. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90-104. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 48. 1. 90. 14271.
39. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2003). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing, NBER working paper 9991.
40. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2005). Pros and cons of faculty participation in licensing. In G. Libecap (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process design, and intellectual property (pp. 187-210). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
41. Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship through the SBIR Program. NBER conference, April 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
42. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research, design and methods, applied social research methods series. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
43. Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Armstrong, J. (1998a). Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets. Economic Inquiry, 36, 65-86.
44. Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998b). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review, 88, 290-306.
45. Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138-153. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 48. 1. 138. 14274.