IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v25y2016i2p151-160..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Torn between Academic Publications and University–Industry Collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho
  • John S. Liu
  • Max C.-H. Kuan

Abstract

University–industry collaboration (UIC) has grown so rapidly recently that the research resources embedded in universities are shared with external actors in more diversified applications. Researchers have discussed the importance of UIC, showing that UIC facilitates knowledge flows and creates more opportunities for new inventions or innovative research. However, when universities target high performance on both academic research and UIC commercial activities, academic researchers face pressure in balancing their efforts between academic research and technological applications. This study collects researcher-level data from National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), one of the top science and technology universities in Taiwan. By observing researchers’ performance in NTUST, we explore the role of personal tech-oriented capabilities, UIC involvement, and institutional UIC atmosphere. The data include information from 323 research faculties during 2007–11. The results show that technological capabilities positively impact personal academic performance, particularly for researchers with little external social capital. The institutional UIC culture can also be a resource that helps both experienced and inexperienced academic researchers strengthen their performance on academic work. The U-I cooperation in academic works is also a positive stimulus on their personal academic performance, while UIC project collaboration only positively impacts researchers with diversified UIC connections. However, researchers working with different UIC projects have to utilize different resources to strengthen personal academic performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho & John S. Liu & Max C.-H. Kuan, 2016. "Torn between Academic Publications and University–Industry Collaboration," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 151-160.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:2:p:151-160.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvw001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    2. Mario Calderini & Chiara Franzoni, 2004. "Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications," KITeS Working Papers 162, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Oct 2004.
    3. Partha Dasgupta & Paul A. David, 1987. "Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, chapter 16, pages 519-542, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre Dias & Beatriz Selan, 2023. "How does university-industry collaboration relate to research resources and technical-scientific activities? An analysis at the laboratory level," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 392-415, February.
    2. Chi-Yo Huang & Min-Jen Yang & Jeen-Fong Li & Hueiling Chen, 2021. "A DANP-Based NDEA-MOP Approach to Evaluating the Patent Commercialization Performance of Industry–Academic Collaborations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. André Luis Rossoni & Eduardo Pinheiro Gondim Vasconcellos & Roberto Sbragia, 2024. "Influence of social capital, market orientation, and technological readiness on researchers’ interactions with companies," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Soo Jeung Lee, 2019. "Academic entrepreneurship: exploring the effects of academic patenting activity on publication and collaboration among heterogeneous researchers in South Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1993-2013, December.
    5. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Brigida Blasi & Carmela Anna Nappi & Sandra Romagnosi, 2022. "Quality of research as source and signal: revisiting the valorization process beyond substitution vs complementarity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 407-434, April.
    6. Huan Li & Xi Yang & Xinlan Cai, 2022. "Academic spin-off activities and research performance: the mediating role of research collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1037-1069, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crespi, Gustavo & D'Este, Pablo & Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo, 2011. "The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 55-68, February.
    2. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    3. Mario Calderini & Chiara Franzoni & Andrea Vezzulli, 2005. "If Star Scientist do no Patent: an Event History Analysis of Scientific Eminence and the Decision to Patent in the Academic World," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1004, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    5. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    6. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    7. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    8. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    9. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    10. Federico Caviggioli & Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato & Elisa Ughetto, 2023. "Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 216-239, February.
    11. Paula Susana Figueiredo Moutinho & Margarida Fontes & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2007. "Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 355-377, February.
    12. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    14. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    15. David, Paul A., 2001. "Tragedy of the Public Knowledge 'Commons'? Global Science, Intellectual Property and the Digital Technology Boomerang," Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    17. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2008. "Money, fame and the allocation of talent: Brain drain and the institution of science," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 558-581, June.
    18. Lassibille, Gerard, 2001. "Earnings distribution among Spanish engineers: research vs. non-research occupations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 673-680, April.
    19. Francesco Rullani, 2006. "Dragging developers towards the core. How the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community enhances developers' contribution," LEM Papers Series 2006/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Caviggioli, F. & Colombelli, A. & De Marco, A. & Scellato, G. & Ughetto, E., 2023. "The impact of university patenting on the technological specialization of European regions: a technology-level analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:2:p:151-160.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.