The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists

Research Policy

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 497-509

  Iorio, Roberto ^a   Labory, Sandrine ^b   Rentocchini, Francesco ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FERRARA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Knowledge transfer; Motivation; Third mission; University external engagement

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; MOTIVATION;

ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS; ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY; EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; LEARNING OPPORTUNITY; RESEARCH ACTIVITIES; THIRD MISSION; UNIVERSITY EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT;

EDUCATION;

EID: 85009797062     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Res. Policy 42 (2013), 408–422.
2. Andreoni, J., Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Polit. Econ. 97 (1989), 1447–1458.
3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T., The impact of academic patenting on the rate: quality and direction of (public) research output. J. Ind. Econ. 57 (2009), 637–676.
4. Bénabou, R., Tirole, J., Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 96 (2006), 1652–1678.
5. Bekkers, R., Bodas Freitas, I.M., Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter?. Res. Policy 37 (2008), 1837–1853.
6. Bertanha, M., Moser, P., Spatial errors in count data regressions. J. Econometr. Methods 5 (2016), 49–69.
7. Bozeman, B., Corley, E., Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res. Policy 33 (2004), 599–616.
8. Bruneel, J., d'Este, P., Salter, A., Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 858–868.
9. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., Regression Analysis of Count Data. 1998, Cambridge University Press New York.
10. Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 3 (1990), 128–152.
11. D'Este, P., Patel, P., University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Res. Policy 36 (2007), 1295–1313.
12. D'Este, P., Perkmann, M., Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Technol. Transfer 36 (2011), 316–339.
13. D'Este, P., Llopis, O., Yegros, A., Conducting prosocial research: cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness of the social impact of research. 35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain, June, 2013, 17–19.
14. Dechenaux, E., Thursby, J., Thursby, M., Inventor moral hazard in university licensing: the role of contracts. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 94–104.
15. Deci, E., Ryan, R., Handbook of Self-determination Research. 2002, University Rochester Press, NY.
16. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125 (1999), 627–668.
17. Ding, W.W., Choi, E., Divergent paths to commercial science: a comparison of scientists’ founding and advising activities. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 69–80.
18. Ding, W.W., Murray, F., Stuart, T.E., Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 313:5787 (2006), 665–667.
19. Etzkowitz, H., Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res. Policy 32 (2003), 109–121.
20. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B.R.C., The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res. Policy 29 (2000), 313–330.
21. European Commission, Green Paper on Innovation Bruxelles. 1995.
22. European Commission, 2007. Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation. Implementing the Lisbon agenda, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Community.
23. Florida, R., Cohen, W.M., Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. Branscomb, L.M., Kodama, F., Florida, R., (eds.) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, 1999, MIT Press, Cambridge, 589–610.
24. Galanti, M.T., Is Italian bureaucracy exceptional? Comparing the quality of Southern European public administration. Bull. Italian Polit. 3:1 (2011), 5–33.
25. Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., Trognon, A., Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: theory. Econometrica: J. Econometr. Soc., 1984, 681–700.
26. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 (1973), 1360–1380.
27. Grant, A.M., Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol., 93, 2008, 48.
28. Grimpe, C., Fier, H., Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany. J. Technol. Transfer 35 (2010), 637–650.
29. Grimpe, C., Hussinger, K., Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: complementarity effects and innovation performance. Ind. Innov. 20 (2013), 683–700.
30. Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C., Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res. Policy 34 (2005), 932–950.
31. Hansen, M.T., The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 4 (1999), 82–111.
32. Harrison, B., Industrial districts: old wine in new bottles? (Volume 26, number 5, 1992). Reg. Stud. 41:S1 (2007), S107–S121.
33. Hsu, D.W., Shen, Y.C., Yuan, B.J., Chou, C.J., Toward successful commercialization of university technology: performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technol. Forecasting Social Change 92 (2015), 25–39.
34. Huber, F., Knowledge-sourcing of R&D workers in different job positions: contextualising external personal knowledge networks. Res. Policy 42 (2013), 167–179.
35. Jensen, R.A., Thursby, M.C., Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (2001), 240–259.
36. Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R., What is research collaboration?. Res. Policy 26 (1997), 1–18.
37. Lam, A., What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialisation: ‘gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 1354–1368.
38. Landry, R., Amara, N., Ouimet, M., Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. J. Technol. Transfer 32 (2007), 561–592.
39. Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., Ouimet, M., Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 1387–1403.
40. Laursen, K., Salter, A., Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?. Res. Policy 33 (2004), 1201–1215.
41. Laursen, K., Salter, A., Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Manage. J. 27 (2006), 131–150.
42. Laursen, K., Salter, A., The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and collaboration. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 867–878.
43. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A., Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Reg. Stud. 45 (2011), 507–523.
44. Lee, Y., The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J. Technol. Transfer 25 (2000), 111–133.
45. Ley, T.J., Hamilton, B.H., The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science 322:5907 (2008), 1472–1474.
46. Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H., Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Sci. Public Policy 23 (1996), 279–286.
47. Link, A.N., Scott, J.T., Public Accountability: Evaluating Technology-Based Institutions. 2012, Springer Science & Business Media.
48. Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Bozeman, B., An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind. Corporate Change 16 (2007), 641–655.
49. Merton, R., The Sociology of Science. 1973, University of Chicago Press Chicago.
50. Moog, P., Werner, A., Houweling, S., Backes-Gellner, U., The impact of skills: working time allocation and peer effects on the entrepreneurial intentions of scientists. J. Technol. Transfer 40 (2015), 493–511.
51. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., Scarpinato, M., The effect of universities’ proximity to industrial districts on university-industry collaboration. China Econ. Rev. 23 (2012), 639–650.
52. Muscio, A., Patterns of innovation in industrial districts: an empirical analysis. Ind. Innov. 13 (2006), 291–312.
53. Nooteboom, B., Learning by interaction: absorptive capacity: cognitive distance and governance. J. Manage. Governance 4 (2000), 69–92.
54. OECD, Benchmarking Industry − Science Relationships, Paris. 2002.
55. OECD, Special Issue on Fostering High-Tech Spin-offs: a Public Strategy for Innovation OECD Review No. 26. 2002.
56. Okada, T., Simon, H.A., Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognit. Sci. 21 (1997), 109–146.
57. Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., D'Este, P., Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 696–706.
58. Penrose, E.T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. 1959, John Wiley New York.
59. Perkmann, M., King, Z., Pavelin, S., Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 539–552.
60. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., Sobrero, M., Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy 42 (2013), 423–442.
61. Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., University–industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (2007), 259–280.
62. Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Indu. Corporate Change 18 (2009), 1033–1065.
63. Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A., Wise, L.R., Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Adm. Rev. 70 (2010), 681–690.
64. Ramos-Vielba, I., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Woolley, R., Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: motivations and barriers. J. Technol. Transfer 41 (2016), 558–585.
65. Reagans, R., McEvily, B., Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2003), 240–267.
66. Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., Networks: diversity and performance: the social capital of R&D units. Organization Sci. 12 (2001), 502–517.
67. Rentocchini, F., D'Este, P., Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Grimaldi, R., The relationship between academic consulting and research performance: evidence from five Spanish universities. Int. J. Ind Organiz 32 (2014), 70–83.
68. Riege, A., Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J. Knowledge Manage. 9 (2005), 18–35.
69. Rizzo, U., Why do scientists create academic spin-offs?: The influence of the context. J. Technol. Transfer 40 (2014), 198–226.
70. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., Jian, L., University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Indu. Corporate Change 16 (2007), 691–792.
71. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Articulating the ‘three missions’ in Spanish universities. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 1760–1773.
72. Schmoch, U., Interaction of universities and industrial enterprises in Germany and the United States-a comparison. Ind. Innov. 6 (1999), 51–68.
73. Shane, S., Stuart, T., Organisational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manage. Sci. 48 (2002), 154–170.
74. Siegel, D., Wright, M., Lockett, A., The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications. Ind. Corporate Change 16 (2007), 489–504.
75. Simon, H.A., Administrative Behavior. 1947, Macmillan New York.
76. Stephan, P.E., Levin, S.G., Striking the Mother Lode in Science: the Importance of Age Oxford. 1992, University Press Oxford.
77. Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., Salter, A., In good company: the influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 1189–1203.
78. Tartari, V., Salter, A., The engagement gap: exploring gender differences in University? Industry collaboration activities. Res 44 (2015), 1176–1191.
79. Thursby, J.G., Thursby, M.C., Who is selling the ivory tower?: Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage. Sci. 48 (2002), 90–104.
80. Uzzi, B., The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61 (1996), 674–698.
81. Uzzi, B., Social relations and networks in the making of financial capital. Am. Sociol. Rev. 64 (1999), 481–505.
82. Wooldridge, J.M., Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. J. Econometr. 90 (1999), 77–97.