'A jack of all trades': The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 134-149

  Boehm, Diana Nadine ^a   Hogan, Teresa ^a  

^a DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Boundary spanner; Network formation; Relationship management; Scientific knowledge commercialisation; University industry linkage

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895062440     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136-1149.
2. Ambos, T. C., Mäkel, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D'Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447.
3. Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics, Group for Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy.
4. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship, productive unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921.
5. Birley, S. (2002). Universities, Academics, and Spinout Companies: Lessons from imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 133-154.
6. Boardman, P. C. (2009). Government centrality to university-industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, 38(10), 1505-1516.
7. Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900-913.
8. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U. K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384.
9. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61-72.
10. Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation. (2009). Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany. Berlin: EFI.
11. 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.
12. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321-342.
13. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
14. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
15. Eurostat. (2012). R&D expenditure of GDP. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
16. European Commission. (2002). Role and strategic use of IPR in international research collaborations. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities.
17. Fontes, M. (2003). A closer look at the process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge as conducted by academic spin-offs. In R. Oakey, W. During & S. Kauser (Eds.), New technology-based firms in the new millenium (Vol. II). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
18. Forfas. (2009). Research and development statistics in Ireland 2009: At a glance. Dublin: Forfas.
19. Forfas. (2010). Review of supports for exploitation of intellectual property from higher education research. Dublin: Forfas.
20. Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465-1474.
21. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
22. Goktepe-Hultèn, D. (2008). Why and how do scientists commercialize their research? Towards a typology of inventors, 2008-071. Jena: Jena Economic Research Papers.
23. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639-658.
24. Halinen, A., & Tornroos, J. A. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1285-1297.
25. Hall, Z. W. (2004). The academy and industry. A view across the divide. In D. G. Stein (Ed.), Buying in or selling out? The commercialization of the American research university (pp. 153-160). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
26. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423-434.
27. INSEAD. (2011). The global innovation index 2011. Fontainebleau: INSEAD.
28. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
29. Jolly, V. K. (1997). Commercializing new technologies: Getting from mind to market (3rd ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
30. Jones-Evans, D., & Klofsten, M. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: The role of the. R&D Management, 29(1), 47.
31. Jordan, D., & O'Leary, E. (2007). Is Irish innovation policy working? Evidence from Irish high-technology businesses. Dublin: Paper presented to a Meeting of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland on 25th October 2007.
32. Kienbaum Managment Consultants GmbH (2006). Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezueglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfaehigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen. Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des BMBFI.
33. Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2009). How does tacit knowledge transfer influence innovation speed? The case of science based entrepreneurial firms. 2009/554. Gent: Working Paper Universiteit Gent.
34. Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of university-business collaboration. Norwich: HM Stationery office.
35. Lockett, N., Kerr, R., & Robinson, S. (2008). Multiple perspectives on the challenges for knowledge transfer between higher education institutions and industry. International Small Business Journal, 26(6), 661-681.
36. 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.
37. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259-283.
38. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107-115.
39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
40. O'Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23-43.
41. O'Shea, R., Allen, T. J., O'Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11-29.
42. O'Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653-666.
43. OECD. (2002). Turning science into business-Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.
44. Oliver, A. L. (2004). Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy, 33(4), 583-597.
45. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033-1065.
46. Perry, C. (2001). Case research in marketing. Marketing Review, 1(3), 303.
47. Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2008). A dyadic study of "champions" in university-industry relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 211-226.
48. Radosevitch, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7/8), 879-893.
49. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. USA: Oxford University Press.
50. Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(4), 429-443.
51. Rocks, S., Carson, D., & Gilmore, A. (2007). Understanding small business enterprise networking: A qualitative case approach. In D. Hine & D. Carson (Eds.), Innovative methodologies in enterprise research (pp. 214-231). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
52. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
53. Sabatier, M., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2006). Profiles of academic activities and careers: Does gender matter? An analysis based on French life scientist CVs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 311-324.
54. Sellenthin, M. O. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603-620.
55. Siegel, D. (2003). Data requirements for assessing the private and social returns to strategic research partnerships: Analysis and recommendations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 207.
56. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
57. 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.
58. Spilling, O. R. (2004). Commercialisation of knowledge-A conceptual framework. NCSB 2004 Conference, 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research: Tromsø.
59. Thorburn, L. (2000). Knowledge management, research spinoffs and commercialization of R&D in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(2), 257-275.
60. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195-219.
61. 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.
62. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
63. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167-1174.
64. Zhao, F. (2004). Commercialization of research: A case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223.
65. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138-153.