The ivory tower approach to entrepreneurial linkage: Productivity changes in university technology transfer

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 180-197

  Kim, Younhee ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneurship; Data envelope analysis; Technical efficiency; University technology transfer

Indexed keywords

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP; DATA ENVELOPE ANALYSIS; INNOVATIVE APPROACHES; PRODUCTIVITY CHANGES; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 84875067943     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9217-8     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annuals of INSEE, 49(50), 127-162.
2. Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
3. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306-318.
4. Association of University Technology Managers. (2007). US licensing activity survey: FY 2006. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers, Inc.
5. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelope analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
6. Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175-188.
7. Bercovitz, J., Feldmann, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patenting and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21-135.
8. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655.
9. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1-2), 199-232.
10. 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.
11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
12. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61-72.
13. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209-227.
14. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.
15. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. New York, NY: Routledge.
16. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B., & Roos, P. (1992). Productivity change in Swedish pharmacies 1980-1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1-2), 85-102.
17. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. (1994). Production frontiers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(part 3), 253-281.
19. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17-30.
20. Jacobs, R., Smith, P. C., & Street, A. (2006). Measuring efficiency in health care. Analytic techniques and health policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
22. Mille, M. (2004). The university, knowledge spillovers and local development: The experience of a new university. Higher Education Management & Policy, 16(3), 77-100.
23. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation. University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24. National Science Board. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).
25. O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer, and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009.
26. Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). Effectiveness of technology transfer. Foundation and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77-144.
27. Ray, S. C. (2004). Data envelopment analysis: Theory and techniques for economics and operations research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21, 253-261.
29. Seiford, L. M. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of state of the art (1978-1995). Journal of Production Analysis, 7, 99-137.
30. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
31. 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 & Technology Management, 21, 115-142.
32. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impacts of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-49.
33. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529-540.
34. Stern, Z. S., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic department efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21(5), 543-556.
35. Stolp, C. (1990). Strengths and weaknesses of data envelopment analysis: An urban and regional perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 14(2), 103-116.
36. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
37. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109-124.
38. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90-104.
39. Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19-50.
40. US Patent and Trademark Office. (2007). US colleges and universities-utility patent grants 1969-2005. Washington, DC: US.
41. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovation and organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
42. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36(1), 65-86.