University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities

Research Policy

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 881-897

  Sengupta, Abhijit ^a   Ray, Amit S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

Academic engagement; Ambidexterity; Commercialisation; HE BCI data; Knowledge transfer; University industry links

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT; AMBIDEXTERITY; COMMERCIALISATION; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIES;

EDUCATION;

EID: 85016433741     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Agrawal, A., Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strateg. Manage. J. 27 (2006), 63–79.
2. Ambos, T.C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., D'Este, P., When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. J. Manage. Stud. 45:8 (2008), 1424–1447.
3. Andersen, B., Rossi, F., UK universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies. Sci. Public Policy 38:4 (2011), 254–268.
4. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Social Psychol., 51(6), 1986, 1173.
5. Börner, K., Maru, J.T., Goldstone, R.L., The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101:Suppl. 1 (2004), 5266–5273.
6. Belenzon, S., Schankermann, M., University knowledge transfer: private ownership, incentives and local development objectives. J. Law Econ. 52:1 (2009), 111–144.
7. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., 2003, June. Technology transfer and the academic department: who participates and why. In DRUID summer conference 15, 12-14.
8. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., Burton, R., Organizational structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behaviour: an exploratory study of Duke Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. J. Technol. Transfer 26 (2001), 21–35.
9. Bhattarcharjee, Y., Industry shrinks academia support. Science, 312(5774), 2006, 671.
10. Birkenshaw, J., Gibson, C., Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 45:4 (2004), 47–55.
11. Boehm, D.N., Hogan, T., ‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. J. Technol. Transfer 39:1 (2014), 134–149.
12. Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Res. Policy 36 (2007), 694–707.
13. Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A., Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 858–868.
14. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H., Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Org. Sci. 20:4 (2009), 781–796.
15. Cartalos, O., Rozakis, S., Tsiouki, D., A method to assess and support exploitation projects of university researchers. J. Technol. Transfer, 2016, 1–21.
16. Chang, Y.C., Yang, P.Y., Chen, M.H., The determinants of academic research commercial performance: towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Res. Policy 38 (2009), 936–946.
17. Chang, Y.C., Yang, P.Y., Martin, B.R., Chi, H.R., Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: a multilevel analysis. Technovation 54 (2016), 7–21.
18. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer offices in the UK: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Res. Policy 34:3 (2005), 369–434.
19. Coombs, R., Hull, R., Knowledge management practices’ and path-dependency in innovation. Res. Policy 27:3 (1998), 237–253.
20. Crespi, G., D'Este, P., Fontana, R., Geuna, A., The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 55–68.
21. Curi, C., Daraio, C., Llerena, P., University technology transfer: how (in) efficient are french universities. Camb. J. Econ. 36 (2012), 629–654.
22. 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.
23. D'Este, P., Perkmann, M., Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Technolo. Transfer 36 (2011), 316–339.
24. Danneels, E., Trying to become a different type of company: dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strateg. Manage. J. 32:1 (2011), 1–31.
25. Dasgupta, P., David, P.A., Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23:5 (1994), 487–521.
26. Deiaco, E., Holmén, M., McKelvey, M., What does it mean conceptually that universities compete?. McKelvey, M., Holmén, M., (eds.) Learning to Compete in European Universities, 2009, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 300–328.
27. Duncan, R.B., The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. Kilmann, R.H., Louis, P.R., Slevin, D.P., (eds.) The Management of Organization Design, vol. 1, 1976, Elsevier North-Holland, New York, 167–188.
28. Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., Torres, A., Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico. Sci. Public Policy 37:7 (2010), 513–526.
29. Etzkowitz, H., Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Soc. Sci. Info. 42:3 (2003), 293–337.
30. 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.
31. Florida, R., Cohen, W.M., Engine or infrastructure? The university's 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, London, 589–610.
32. Geuna, A., Nesta, L.J.J., University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Res. Policy 35:6 (2006), 790–807.
33. Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manage. J. 47:2 (2004), 209–226.
34. Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C., Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res. Policy 34 (2005), 932–950.
35. Haeussler, C., Colyvas, J.A., Breaking the Ivory Tower: academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 41–54.
36. Han, M., Celly, N., Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Can. J. Adm. Sci./Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 25:4 (2008), 335–349.
37. Hane, G., Comparing university-industry linkages in the United States and Japan. Branscomb, L.M., Kodama, F., Florida, R., (eds.) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, 1999, MIT Press, London, 20–61.
38. Hendersen, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80:1 (1998), 119–127.
39. Hewitt-Dundas, N., Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Res. Policy 4 (2012), 262–275.
40. House, C., Price, R., The HP Phenomenon: Innovation and Business Transformation. 2009, University Press, Stanford.
41. Howell, K.E., Annansingh, F., Knowledge generation and sharing in UK universities: a tale of two cultures. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 33:1 (2013), 32–39.
42. Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Camb. J. Econ. 36:3 (2012), 723–750.
43. Imai, K., Keele, L., Yamamoto, T., Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat. Sci. 25:1 (2010), 51–71.
44. Kitagawa, F., Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M., Uyarra, E., Third mission as institutional strategies: between isomorphic forces and heterogeneous pathways. Sci. Public Policy, 2016, 1–15.
45. Landry, R., Amara, N., Ouimet, M., Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. J. Technol. Transfer 32:6 (2007), 561–592.
46. Lee, S., Bozeman, B., The impact of research collaborations on scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:5 (2005), 673–702.
47. Lee, Y.S., The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J. Technol. Transfer 25 (2000), 111–133.
48. Levin, D.Z., Cross, R., The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manage. Sci. 50:11 (2004), 1477–1490.
49. Lin, Z., Yang, H., Demirkan, I., The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manage. Sci. 53:10 (2007), 1645–1658.
50. Lockett, A., Wright, M., Wild, A., The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK Higher Education: the role of discourse and metrics. Bri. J. Manage. 26 (2015), 78–92.
51. Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J.F., Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J. Manage. 32:5 (2006), 646–672.
52. Macpherson, A., Ziolkowsky, M., The role of university-based industrial extension services in the business performance of small manufacturing firms: case study evidence from Western New York. Entrepreneur. Reg. Dev. 17:6 (2005), 431–447.
53. Markides, C., In search of ambidextrous professors. Acad. Manage. J. 50 (2007), 762–768.
54. Markman, G.D., Phan, P.H., Balkin, D.B., Gianiodis, P.T., Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J. Business Ventur. 20:2 (2005), 241–263.
55. Martin, B.R., Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Camb. J. Econ. 36:3 (2012), 543–565.
56. Mazloumian, A., Eom, Y.H., Helbing, D., Lozano, S., Fortunato, S., How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and nobel prizes. PLoS One, 6(5), 2011, pe18975.
57. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., Duran, X., Measuring Third Stream Activities. 2002, SPRU, Brighton.
58. Morris, Z.S., Wooding, S., Grant, J., The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J. R. Soc. Med. 104:12 (2011), 510–520.
59. Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N., The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments?. J. Technol. Transfer 30:1–2 (2005), 115–127.
60. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A., The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dohl Act of 1980. Res. Policy 30:1 (2001), 99–119.
61. O'Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 27:4 (2013), 324–338.
62. O'shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Chevalier, A., Roche, F., Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Res. Policy 34 (2005), 994–1009.
63. Perez, M.P., Sánchez, A.M., The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation 23:10 (2003), 823–831.
64. Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., Engaging the scholar: three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Res. Policy 37 (2008), 1884–1891.
65. Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., The two faces of collaborations: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Ind. Corp. Change 18:6 (2009), 1033–1065.
66. Perkmann, M., King, Z., Pavelin, S., Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Res. Policy 40 (2011), 539–552.
67. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostrom, A., D'Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., 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.
68. Petersen, A.M., Fortunato, S., Pan, R.K., Kaski, K., Penner, O., Rungi, A., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H.E., Pammolli, F., Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111:43 (2014), 15316–15321.
69. Phan, P.H., Siegel, D.S., The effectiveness of university technology transfer: the lessons learnt from qualitative and quantitative research in the US and UK. Found. Trends Entrepreneur. 2 (2006), 66–144.
70. Powell, W.W., Koput, K., Smith-Doerr, L., Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in Biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1996), 116–145.
71. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L., Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Org. Sci. 20:4 (2009), 685–695.
72. Ray, A.S., Saha, S., Patenting public-Funded research for technology transfer: a conceptual–empirical synthesis of US evidence and lessons for India. J. World Intell. Prop. 14:1 (2011), 75–101.
73. Reagans, R., McEvily, B., Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:2 (2003), 240–267.
74. Rosli, A., Rossi, F., Third mission policy goals and incentives for performance-based funding: are they aligned?. Res. Eval., 2016, 1–15.
75. Rossi, F., Rosli, A., Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom. Stud. Higher Educ. 40 (2013), 1970–1991.
76. Roux, D.J., Rogers, K.H., Biggs, H., Ashton, P.J., Sergeant, A., Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc. 11:1 (2006), 23–43.
77. Ruttan, V.W., Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change. Econ. J. 107:444 (1997), 1520–1529.
78. Salter, A.J., Martin, B.R., The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res. Policy 30 (2001), 509–532.
79. Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M., Articulating the ‘three missions’ in Spanish universities’. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 1760–1773.
80. Santoro, M.D., Gopalkrishnan, S., The institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within industry-university collaborations. J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 17:3–4 (2000), 299–319.
81. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., Fröhlich, J., Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Res. Policy 31 (2002), 303–328.
82. Sengupta, A., Ray, A.S., Choice of structure, business model and portfolio: organisational models of knowledge transfer offices in british universities. Br. J. Manage., 2017, 10.1111/1467-8551.12224.
83. Sharifi, H., Liu, W., Ismail, H.S., Higher education system and the ‘open’ knowledge transfer: a view from perception of senior managers at university knowledge transfer offices. Stud. Higher Educ., 39(10), 2013.
84. Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink?. Br. J. Manage. 26:4 (2015), 582–595.
85. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Link, A., Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res. Policy 32:1 (2003), 27–48.
86. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., Koch, J., Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Acad. Manage. Rev. 34:4 (2009), 689–709.
87. Thursby, J.G., Thursby, M.C., Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth of university licensing. Manage. Sci. 48:1 (2002), 90–104.
88. Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A., The ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manage. Rev. 38:4 (1996), 8–30.
89. Tushman, M., O'Reilly, C., Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. 1997, Business School Press, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
90. Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A., Winning Through Innovations. 2002, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
91. Valdivia, W.D., University Start-Ups: Critical for Improving Technology Transfer, Brookings Paper, Centre for Technology Innovation. 2013, The Brookings Institution.
92. West, J., Commercializing open science: deep space communications as the lead market for Shannon Theor, 1960–73. J. Manage. Stud. 45:8 (2008), 1506–1532.
93. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M., Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of the intermediary. Res. Policy 37 (2008), 1205–1223.
94. Zahra, S.A., The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Strateg. Entrepreneur. J. 2:3 (2008), 243–257.