Higher education system and the ‘open’ knowledge transfer: a view from perception of senior managers at university knowledge transfer offices

Studies in Higher Education

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1860-1884

  Sharifi, Hossein ^a   Liu, Weisheng ^a   Ismail, Hossam S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL MANAGEMENT SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

entrepreneurial university; knowledge transfer office; open knowledge transfer; Q method; senior managers' perception; university industry partnerships

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909580897     PISSN: 03075079     EISSN: 1470174X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818645     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Adner, R., and C. Helfat. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24, no. 10: 1011–25. doi: 10.1002/smj.331
2. Agrawal, A. 2001. University to industry knowledge transfer:Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Review 3, no. 4: 285–302. doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00069
3. Anderson, T. R., T.U. Daim, and F.F. Lavoie. 2007. Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation 27, no. 5: 306–18. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.003
4. Andrews, P. 2003. Open innovation: Using research from everywhere for new product and service development. IBM Executive technology report: IBM Advanced Business Institute, http://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/etr_openinnov.pdf
5. Barr, P. E., J.L. Stimpert, and A.S. Huff. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organisational renewal. Strategic Management Journal 13: 15–36. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131004
6. Barr, P. S. 1998. Adapting to unfamiliar environmental events: a look at the evolution of interpretation and its role in strategic change. Organisation Science 9, no. 6: 644–69. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.6.644
7. Bercovitz, J., and M. Feldman. 2006. Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 175–88. doi: 10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z
8. Bercovitz, J., M. Feldman, I. Feller, and R. Burton. 2001. Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 21–35. doi: 10.1023/A:1007828026904
9. Brown, S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10. Brown, S.R. 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16: 91–138.
11. Brown, S.R. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6, no. 4: 561–67. doi: 10.1177/104973239600600408
12. Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
13. Chapple, W., A. Lockett, D. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2005. Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy 34, no. 3: 369–84. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007
14. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 44, no. 3: 35–41.
15. Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, ed. H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Cho, T. S., and D.C. Hambrick. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: the case of airline deregulation. Organisation Science 17, no. 4: 453–69. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0192
17. Clark, B. R. 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: International Association of Universities and Elsevier Science.
18. Cohen, W. M., R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48, no. 1: 1–23. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
19. Coombs, R., M. Harvey, and B.S. Tether. 2003. Analysing distributed processes of provision and innovation. Industrial & Corporate Change 12: 1125–55. doi: 10.1093/icc/12.6.1125
20. Debackere, K., and R. Veugelers. 2005. The role of academic technology transfer organisations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34: 321–42. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.003
21. D'Este, P., and P. Patel. 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy 33: 1295–1313. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002
22. Etzkowitz, H. 2003a. The European entrepreneurial university. Industry and Higher Education 17, no. 5: 325–35. doi: 10.5367/000000003773007256
23. Etzkowitz, H. 2003b. Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relationship. Social science information 42, no. 3: 293–337. doi: 10.1177/05390184030423002
24. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamic of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–23. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
25. Etzkowitz, H., and A. H. Webster. 1998. Entrepreneurial science: the second academic revolution. In Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia, ed. Etzkowitz, A. Webster and P. Healey. Albany: State of University of New York.
26. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B. Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–30. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
27. Fabrizo, K. R. 2006. The use of university research in firm innovation. In Open innovation: Research a new paradigm, ed. H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West, 134–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Feller, I., C.P. Ailes, and J.D. Roessner. 2002. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy 31: 457–74. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00119-6
29. Feller, I., M. Feldman, J. Bercovitz, and R. Burton. 2002. The state of practice for university technology transfer activities. Research Management Review 12, no. 2: 8–16.
30. Friedman, J., and J. Silberman. 2003. University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter?. Journal of Technology Management 28: 17–30.
31. Giuliani, E., and V. Arza. 2009. What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy 38: 906–21. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.006
32. Graff, G., A. Heiman, and D. Zilberman. 2002. University research and offices of technology transfer. California Management Review 45, no. 1: 88–115. doi: 10.2307/41166155
33. Grimaldi, R., M. Kenney, D.S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2011. 30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40, no. 8: 1045–57. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005
34. th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, ed. J.-P. Contzen, D. Gibson and M. V. Heitor, Ashland, OH: Purdue University Press.
35. Hambrick, D. C., and P.A. Mason. 1984. Upper echelons: the organisation as a reflection of its top manager. Academy of Management Review 9, no. 2: 193–206.
36. Hargadon A.B. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation, California Management Review 40, no. 3: 209–27.
37. Harman, G. 2010. Australian university research commercialisation: perceptions of technology transfer specialists and science and technology academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32, no. 1: 69–83. doi: 10.1080/13600800903440568
38. Harman, G., and C. Stone. 2006. Australian university technology transfer managers: Backgrounds, work roles, specialist skills and perceptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 28, no. 3: 213–30. doi: 10.1080/13600800600979959
39. HEFCE 2007. Annual report, https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/about/howweoperate/annualaccounts/HEFCEaccounts0607.pdf
40. HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW, DfEL, and DfIUS. 2007. Report on higher education business and community interaction survey 2005–2006. Higher Education Funding Council for England, https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2008/200822/08_22.pdf
41. HEFCW 2007. Annual report, http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/publications/corporate_documents/Annual%20Report/HEFCW%20Annual%20Report%202006-07%20English.pdf.
42. HM Treasury, DTI, and DfES. 2003. Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–14. London: HMSO.
43. Hornsby, J. S., D.F. Kuratkoa, and S.A. Zahra. 2002. Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing 17: 253–73. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8
44. Howells, J., M. Nevada, and L. Georghiou. (1998). Industry-academic links in the UK. A report to the Higher Education Funding Councils of England, Scotland and Wales, PREST, University of Manchester.
45. Hughes, A. 2006. University industry links and UK science and innovation policy. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
46. Jain, S., and G. George. 2007. Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Industrial and Corporate Change 16, no. 4: 535–67. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtm017
47. Kaplan, S., F. Murray, and R. Henderson. 2003. Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change 12, no. 2: 203–33. doi: 10.1093/icc/12.2.203
48. Kirby, D. A. 2006. Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer 31, no. 5: 599–603. doi: 10.1007/s10961-006-9061-4
49. Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert review of business university collaboration: final report. HMSO, available from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/lambert_review_final_450.1151581102387.pdf
50. Leslie, L., R. A. Oaxaca, and G. Rhoades. 2001. Technology transfer and academic capitalism. In AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001, ed. Teich, S. Nelson, C. McEnaney and S. Lita, 261–77. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
51. Litan, R. E., L. Mitchell, and E.J. Reedy. 2007. Commercializing university innovations: a better way. NBER Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
52. Loftus, S., and C. Sillars. 2005. Understanding technology transfer. APAX Partners and The Economist Intelligence Unit, available from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/newsletter/2011/attachments/apax_tech_transfer.pdf
53. Macho-Stadler, I., D. Perez-Castrillo, and R. Veugelers. 2007. Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 25, no. 3: 483–510. doi: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.06.001
54. Martinelli, A., M. Meyer, and N. von Tunzelmann. 2008. Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer 33, no. 8: 259–83. doi: 10.1007/s10961-007-9031-5
55. McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. London: Sage.
56. Mowery, D. C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation. University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
57. Nelsen, L. 2001. The entrepreneurial university. In AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001, A. Teich, S. Nelson, C. McEnaney, and S. Lita. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
58. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 18: 187–206. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.3.CO;2-B
59. Padilla-Meléndez, A., and A. Garrido-Moreno. 2012. Open innovation in universities: What motivates researchers to engage in knowledge transfer exchanges?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 18, no. 4: 417–39. doi: 10.1108/13552551211239474
60. Perkmann, M., and K. Walsh. 2007. University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 9, no. 4: 259–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
61. Phan, P., and D. Siegel. 2006. The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics. 1–63. New York: Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
62. Pierre, J., ed. 2000. Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Robbins, P., and R. Krueger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer 52, no. 4: 636–48. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00252
64. Rothaermel, F. T., S.D. Agung, and L. Jiang. 2007. University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporation Change 16, no. 4: 691–791. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtm023
65. Sampat, B. N., R.R. Nelson. 1999. The emergence and standardization of university technology transfer offices: a case study of institutional change. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Society for the New Institutional Economics, 1999, in World Bank, Washington.
66. Schartinger, D., C. Rammera, M.M. Fischer, and J. Frohlich. 2002. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy 31: 303–28. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00111-1
67. Schendel, D. E., and C.W. Hofer. 1979. Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning, 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
68. SFEFC 2007. Annual report and accounts, http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/ReportsandPublications/SFC_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2006-07.pdf
69. Sharifi, H., and W. Liu. 2010. Emerging landscape: An exploratory study of management of university knowledge transfer office in the UK. London: Advanced Institute of Management.
70. Siegel, D. S., R. Veugelers, and M. Wright. 2007. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23, no. 4: 640–60. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grm036
71. Siegel, D. S., D.A. Waldman, L.E. Atwater, and A.N. Link. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. International Journal of Technology Management 21: 115–42.
72. Siegel, D. S., D.A. Waldman, and A.N. Link. 2003. Assessing the impact of organisational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy 32: 27–48. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2
73. Smircich, L., and C. Stubbart. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world. Strategic Management in an Enacted World 10, no. 4: 724–36.
74. Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
75. Stevens, J. M., and J.W. Bagby. 2001. Knowledge transfer from universities to business: returns for all stakeholders?. Organisation 8, no. 2: 259–68.
76. Stubbart, C. I. 1989. Managerial cognition: a missing link in strategic management research. Journal of Management Studies 26, no. 4: 325–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00732.x
77. Tegarden, D., and S. Sheetz. 2003. Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organisational cognition. Omega 31: 113–25. doi: 10.1016/S0305-0483(03)00018-5
78. Van Exel N.J.A., and G. de Graaf. 2005. Q methodology: A sneak preview. [available from www.jobvanexel.nl]
79. Van Looy, B., P. Landoni, J. Callaert, B. van Pottelsberghe, E. Sapsalis, and K. Debackere. 2011. Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy 40, no. 4: 553–64. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.001
80. Van Looy, B., M. Ranga, J. Callaert, K. Debackere, and E. Zimmermann. 2004. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect?. Research Policy 33: 425–41. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004
81. Vogel, A., and Kaghan, W. 2001. Bureaucrats, brokers, and the entrepreneurial university, Organization 8, no. 2: 358–64.
82. Vorley, T., and H. Lawton Smith. 2007. Universities and the knowledge-based economy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25: 775–78. doi: 10.1068/c2506ed
83. Wright, M., B. Clarysse, A. Lockett, and M. Knockert. 2008. Mid-range universities' in Europe linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy 37, no. 8: 1205–23. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021
84. Wright, M., B. Clarysse, P. Mustar, and A. Lockett. 2007. Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
85. Yusuf S. 2008. Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses, Research Policy 37, no. 8: 1167–74.
86. Zerhouni, E. 2003. The NIH roadmap. Science 302, no. 5642: 63–72. doi: 10.1126/science.1091867