The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 753-777

  Cesaroni, Fabrizio ^a,b   Piccaluga, Andrea ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

^b SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Academic engagement; Entrepreneurial university; Knowledge transfer; Knowledge transfer offices; University third mission; University industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; EDUCATION; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT; ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY; INDUSTRY COLLABORATION; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; UNIVERSITY THIRD MISSION;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84925070800     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9401-3     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Balderi, C., Butelli, P., Conti, G., Di Minin, A. & Piccaluga, A. (2007). Towards an Italian way in the valorisation of results from public research. Impresa Progetto: Electronic Journal of Management, 1, DITEA. http://www.impresaprogetto.it/essays/2007-1/balderi-butelli-conti
2. Baldini, N., Fini, R., & Grimaldi, R. (2014). The transition towards entrepreneurial universities: An assessment of academic entrepreneurship in Italy. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
4. Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299–1315.
5. Bax, A., Corrieri, S., Daniele, C., Guarnieri, L., Parente, R., Piccaluga, A., et al. (2014). Unire i puntini per completare il disegno dell’innovazione - XI rapporto Netval sulla valorizzazione della ricerca pubblica italiana. Milano, IT: Fazzi Editore.
6. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.
7. Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2006). Advanced indicators of productivity of universities: An application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 389–410.
8. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655.
9. Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F., & Florida, R. L. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States. London: MIT Press.
10. Cesaroni, F., Conti, G. & Piccaluga, A. (2005). Technology transfer offices (TTO) in Italian universities: What they do and how they do it. In 5th Triple Helix conference: “The capitalization of knowledge: Cognitive, economic, social and cultural aspects”, Turin, Italy, May 18th–21st.
11. Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2005). Universities and intellectual property rights in Southern European countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 497–518.
12. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: International Association of Universities & Elsevier Science Ltd.
14. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
15. Daraio, C., Bonaccorsi, A., Geuna, A., Lepori, B., Bach, L., Bogetoft, P., et al. (2011). The European university landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project. Research Policy, 40(1), 148–164.
16. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.
17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
18. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
19. EUA, ProTon Europe, EARTO, & EIRMA. (2009). Responsible partnering—Joining forces in a world of open innovation. A guide to better practices for collaborative research between science and industry. Bruxelles, BE: European University Association. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Responsible_Partnering_Guidelines_09.sflb.ashx
20. European Commission. (2004). Management of intellectual property in publicly-funded research organizations: Towards European guidelines. Bruxelles, BE: European Commission, Expert Group. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/iprmanagementguidelines-report.pdf
21. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
22. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.
23. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.
24. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
25. Greene, W. H. (1997). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26. Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, A., & Elg, L. (2013). Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak? A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.
27. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.
28. Lazzeroni, M., & Piccaluga, A. (2003). Towards the entrepreneurial university. Local Economy, 18(1), 38–48.
29. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
30. Lowe, R. A. (2006). Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 415–429.
31. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
32. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.
33. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.
34. Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 13–19.
35. O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.
36. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
37. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884–1891.
38. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.
39. Piccaluga, A. & Conti, G. (2011). Technology Transfer Office (TTO). In A. Bonaccorsi & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Trasformare conoscenza trasferire tecnologia. Dizionario critico delle scienze sociali sulla valorizzazione della conoscenza (pp. 214–216). Venezia, IT: Marsili.
40. Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of university–industry linkages: A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21–44.
41. Ramos-Vielba, I., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2012). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Exploring the multiple forms of university–industry linkages. Higher Education, 64(2), 237–265.
42. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
43. Salter, A., D’Este, P., Pavitt, K., Scott, A., Martin, B. R., Geuna, A., et al. (2000). Talent, not technology: The impact of publicly funded research on innovation in the UK. Brighton: SPRU-University of Sussex.
44. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2014). Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities. Research Policy, 43(10), 1760–1773.
45. Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 435–453.
46. 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.
47. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011a). Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Research Policy, 40(1), 20–29.
48. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011b). University–industry linkages in nanotechnology and biotechnology: Evidence on collaborative patterns for new methods of inventing. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 605–623.
49. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.
50. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.
51. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.
52. Verheugen, G. & Potocnik, J. (2005). Responsible partnering—A guide to better practices for collaborative research and knowledge transfer between science and industry. Bruxelles, BE: European Commission, DG Enterprise & Industry. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Research/2005_Responsible_Partnering_rp-2005-v102_2.sflb.ashx
53. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.