Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 407-429

  Kochenkova, Anna ^a   Grimaldi, Rosa ^a   Munari, Federico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Commercialization of university research; Government support of technology transfer; Knowledge transfer from academia to industry; Public policy measures

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ACADEMIC LITERATURE; GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS; IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; LITERATURE CLASSIFICATIONS; PUBLIC POLICY MEASURES; REGIONAL GOVERNMENT; UNIVERSITY RESEARCH;

PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 84928958061     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Abetti, P. A. (2004). Government-supported incubators in the Helsinki region, Finland: Infrastructure, results, and best practices. Journal of Technology Transfer,29(1), 19–40.
2. Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics,23, 127–135.
3. Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy,31, 145–158.
4. Azagra Caro, J. M., De Lucio, I. F., & Gracia, A. G. (2003). University patents: Output and input indicators… of what? Research Evaluation,12, 5–16.
5. Azagra-Caro, J. (2010). Do public research organisations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy,38(3), 237–250.
6. Balconi, M., Borghini, S., & Moisello, A. (2003). Ivory tower vs. spanning university: il caso dell’Universita di Pavia. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), Il Sistema della Ricerca Pubblica in Italia (pp. 133–175). Milan: Franco Angeli.
7. Baldini, N. (2006). The act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities’ patenting activity. Scientometrics,69(2), 387–407.
8. Baldini, N., Fini, R., & Grimaldi, R. (2012). The transition towards entrepreneurial universities: An assessment of academic entrepreneurship in Italy. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1979450 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1979450
9. Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2010). The institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy. Diffusion and evolution of organisational practices. SSRN—id1632430 paper.
10. Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Organisational change and the institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy. Minerva,52, 27–53.
11. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy,35(4), 518–532.
12. Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation,26, 489–505.
13. Borlaug, S. B., Grünfeld, L., Gulbrandsen, M., Rasmussen, E., Rønning, L., Spilling, O. R., & Vinogradov, E. (2009). Between entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Evaluation of the FORNY programme. In Rapport/NIFU STEP; 19/2009, NIFU STEP, Oslo, p. 160.
14. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy,29, 627–655.
15. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy,36(5), 694–707.
16. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer,38(4), 349–381.
17. Calderini, M., Garrone, P., & Sobrero, M. (2003). Corporate governance, market structure, and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy,33, 1081–1102.
19. Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2003). Universities and intellectual property rights in Southern European countries. New York: Mimeo.
20. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change,16(4), 609–640.
21. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science,48(1), 61–72.
22. Cooper, A. C. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? R&D Management, 3 (2).
23. Cooper, A. C. (1984). Contrasts in the role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented companies. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson Park: Babson College.
24. Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7).
25. Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
26. Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change,20(5), 1403–1437.
27. Damsgaard E. F., & Thursby, M. C. (2012). University entrepreneurship and professor privilege. NBER Working Paper no. 17980. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17980
28. Debackere, K., & Vergeulers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy,34, 321–342.
29. Della Malva, A., Lissoni, F., & Llerena, P. (2008). Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999. University of Strasbourg: Working Papers of BETA, no. 2008-09.
30. Eickelpasch, A., & Fritsch, M. (2005). Contests for cooperation—A new approach in German innovation policy. Research Policy,34, 1269–1282.
31. Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in Entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms. ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-28-STR.
32. 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, 313–330.
33. Feldman, M., Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2002). The Economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Feldman, M., & Stewart, I. (2006). Knowledge transfer and innovation: A review of the policy relevant literature. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.
35. Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy,31, 457–474.
36. Gallochat, A. (2003). French technology transfer and ip policies. In: OECD (2003) Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
37. Geuna, A. (1998). Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects. Research Policy,26, 677–687.
38. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva,47(1), 93–114.
39. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy,35, 790–807.
40. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy,40, 1068–1076.
41. Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of university IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5).
42. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy,32, 639–658.
43. Gray, D. O., & Walters, S. G. (1998). Managing the industry/university cooperative research centers. A Guide for directors and other stakeholders. Columbus–Richland: Battelle Press.
44. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40, 1045–1057.
45. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
46. Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer,33(2), 249–258.
47. Huelsbeck, M. & Lehmann, E. (2006): German university patenting and licensing: Legally prescribed incentives and institutional determinants of university–industry-technology-transfer. DRUID-DIME Academy Winter Conference 2007 Paper.
48. Huggins, R. (2006). Universities and knowledge-based venturing: Finance, management and networks in London. Paper for the DRU9ID Summer Conference 2006.
49. Hulsink, W., Suddle, K., & Hessels, J. (2008). Science and technology-based regional entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Building support structures for business creation and growth entrepreneurship. ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-048-ORG.
50. Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics,70, 393–414.
51. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy,32(9), 1555–1568.
52. Jaffe, A. (2000). The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy,29, 531–557.
53. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review,91(1), 240–259.
54. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy,38, 1407–1422.
55. Knockaert, M., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Lockett, A. (2010). Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing. Journal of Technology Transfer,35, 567–584.
56. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy,28, 1–22.
57. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal,22, 615–640.
58. Leleux, B., & Surlemont, B. (2003). Public versus private venture capital: Seeding or crowding out? A pan-European analysis. Journal of Business Venturing,18, 81–104.
59. Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the SBIR program. Journal of Business,72, 285–318.
60. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy,39(5), 589–601.
61. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from the small business innovation research program. Small Business Economics,39, 265–287.
62. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2013). Public R&D subsidies, outside private support, and employment growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,22(6), 537–550.
63. Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information,34(3), 197–205.
64. Lissoni F., Pezzoni, M., Potì, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2013). University autonomy, IP legislation and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2006. Industry and Innovation, 20(5).
65. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation,17(2), 87–102.
66. Lockett, A., Murray, G., & Wright, M. (2002). Do UK venture capitalists still have a bias against investment in new technology firms? Research Policy,31, 1009–1030.
67. Lotta, V. (2003). Public provision of business support services in Finland. ETLA Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), No. 850, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/63769
68. Macdonald, S. (2009). Seducing the goose. Patenting by UK Universities. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
69. Maia, C., & Cara, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer,38(5), 641–650.
70. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation andrecipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy,25(7), 1047–1058.
71. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation,12, 17–27.
72. Meyer, M. S., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics,70, 415–440.
73. Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy,34(7), 1010–1027.
74. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy,30, 99–119.
75. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments. Journal of Technology Transfer,30, 115–127.
76. Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2011). Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change,20(2), 397–432.
77. Munari, F., Pasquini, M., Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock-market? The characteristics and impact of university–oriented seed funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
78. Munari, F., Toschi, L. (2015). Assessing the impact of public venture capital programmes in the United Kingdom: Do regional characteristics matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2), 205–226.
79. Mustar, P. (2002). Public support for the spin-off companies from higher education and research institutions. In Proceedings of the strata consolidated workshop.
80. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer,35, 42–65.
81. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing,20, 165–182.
82. Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics,58, 301–320.
83. Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation,28, 506–517.
84. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2006). The university and the spin-off process-A dynamic capability approach.
85. Rasmussen, E., & Rice, M. P. (2012). A framework for government support mechanisms aimed at enhancing university technology transfer: The Norwegian case. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 11(½).
86. Rasmussen, E., & Sorheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,24(7), 663–678.
87. Reale, E., & Poti, B. (2009). Italy: Local policy legacy and moving to an “in between” configuration. University Governance Higher Education Dynamics,25, 77–102.
88. Rogers, E. M. (2002). The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication,23(3), 323–341.
89. Salmenkaita, J.-P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government interventions in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,14(2), 183–200.
90. Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2003). What patent data reveal aboutuniversities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer,28, 47–51.
91. Scott J. T. (1989). Historical and economic perspectives on the National Cooperative Research Act in cooperative research and development: The industry–university–government relationship. In A. N. Link & G. Tassey. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
92. Siegel, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21, 1357–1369.
93. Stankiewicz, R. (1998). Science parks and innovation centers. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, & P. Healey (Eds.), Capitalizing knowledge-new intersections of industry and academia (pp. 133–147). New York: State University of New York Press.
94. Sterzi, V. (2011) Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter? MPRA Paper No. 34955, posted 23. November 2011/10:07. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/34955/
95. Tang, P. (2008). Exploiting university intellectual property in the UK. London: Intellectual Property Institute.
96. Toole, A. A., Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Working Paper 11450 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11450
97. Uecke, O., Rajendran, L., Schellin, S., & Simons, K. (2010). Enhancing effectiveness in early stages of technology transfer and entrepreneurship: The case of a new Alzheimer’s disease treatment. Conference paper 18th annual high technology small firms conference.
98. Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer,32(3), 251–276.
99. Van der Steen, M., Bekkers, R., BodasFreitas, I., & Gilsing, V. (2008). Beyond the demand-side perspective of technology transfer policies: An empirical analysis of the Netherlands. Conference paper for the DIME conference.
100. Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., & Andries, P. (2003). Policies to stimulate regional capabilities via university–industry collaboration: An analysis and assessment. R&D Management,33, 2.
101. van Zeebroeck, N., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Guellec, D. (2008). Patents and academic research: A state of the art. CEB Working Paper No. 08/013.
102. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy,33(1), 147–175.
103. von Ledebur, S. (2009). University-owned patents in West and East Germany and the abolition of the professors’ privilege. Working Papers on Innovation and Space. Marburg University, Papers no. 02-09.
104. von Ledebur, S., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, H. (2009). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What role did the professors’ privilege play? Jena Economic Research Papers no. 2009-068.
105. Wright, M., & Filatotchev, I. (2008). Stimulating academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer: A case study of Kings College London commercialization strategies. In R. P. O’Shea & T. J. Allen (Eds.), Building technology transfer in research universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
106. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy,35(4), 481–501.