IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i7p541-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organisations and industry: comparing four Latin American countries

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriela Dutrénit
  • Valeria Arza

Abstract

This paper compares the results of four country studies (Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico) on the relative effectiveness of channels of interactions between public research organisations (PROs) and industry in driving specific types of benefits for researchers and firms. All studies used micro-datasets developed by a joint project using common questionnaires. Channels of interactions were classified into four groups (traditional, services, bi-directional and commercial) while benefits were classified into two groups for firms (short-term production and long-term innovation) and for researchers (economic and intellectual). It is found that the bi-directional (knowledge flows in both directions) and the services (knowledge flows mainly from PROs to firms) channels drive intellectual benefits for researchers. Firms tend to value the traditional channel (i.e. graduates, publications, conferences) more than any other channel. However, it is the bi-directional channel that drives the best benefits, especially those related to contributions to innovation activities. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriela Dutrénit & Valeria Arza, 2010. "Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organisations and industry: comparing four Latin American countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(7), pages 541-553, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:7:p:541-553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X512043
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Marques, Rosane Argou & Silva, Evando Mirra de Paula e, 2013. "University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 443-453.
    2. Yao, Li & Li, Jun & Li, Jian, 2020. "Urban innovation and intercity patent collaboration: A network analysis of China’s national innovation system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    3. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    4. D'Este, Pablo & Rentocchini, Francesco & Grimaldi, Rosa & Manjarrés-Henríquez, Liney, 2013. "The relationship between research funding and academic consulting: An empirical investigation in the Spanish context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1535-1545.
    5. D'Este,Pablo & Rentocchini,Francesco & Manjarrés-Henríquez,Liney & Grimaldi,Rosa, 2012. "Does academic consulting require any research? Examining the relationship between research funding and academic consulting," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201203, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 21 May 2012.
    6. Madhav Govind & Merle Küttim, 2016. "International Knowledge Transfer from University to Industry: A Systematic Literature Review," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 8(2).
    7. Maryam Ghorbankhani & Federica Rossi, 2023. "Intrinsic and strategic complementarity of research and knowledge transfer activities as determinants of knowledge transfer management: evidence from public research organisations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1386-1412, August.
    8. Oguguo, Prince C. & Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Genet, Corine, 2020. "Multilevel institutional analyses of firm benefits from R&D collaboration," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Hugo Confraria & Fernando Vargas, 2019. "Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 874-915, June.
    10. Laurens Klerkx & José Guimón, 2017. "Attracting foreign R&D through international centres of excellence: early experiences from Chile," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 763-774.
    11. Valeria Arza & Mariela Carattoli, 2017. "Personal ties in university-industry linkages: a case-study from Argentina," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 814-840, August.
    12. Glenda Kruss, 2012. "Channels of interaction in health biotechnology networks in South Africa: who benefits and how?," International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1/2), pages 204-220.
    13. Albuquerque, Eduardo da Motta e & Chaves, Catari Vilela & Dos Santos, Ulisses Pereira & Ribeiro, Leonardo Costa, 2020. "Innovation systems and changes in the core-periphery divide: notes on a methodology to determine countries’ trajectories using science and technology statistics," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), April.
    14. Rentocchini, Francesco & D'Este, Pablo & Manjarrés-Henríquez, Liney & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2014. "The relationship between academic consulting and research performance: Evidence from five Spanish universities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 70-83.
    15. Claudia Fuentes & Gabriela Dutrénit, 2016. "Geographic proximity and university–industry interaction: the case of Mexico," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 329-348, April.
    16. Bhullar, Supreet S. & Nangia, Vinay K. & Batish, Ajay, 2019. "Research article: The impact of academia-industry collaboration on core academic activities: Assessing the latent dimensions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-11.
    17. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Zhu, Guilong & Mu, Rongping, 2020. "Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 94.
    18. Glenda Kruss & Mariette Visser, 2017. "Putting university–industry interaction into perspective: a differentiated view from inside South African universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 884-908, August.
    19. De Fuentes, Claudia & Dutrénit, Gabriela, 2012. "Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1666-1682.
    20. Yuandi Wang & Die Hu & Weiping Li & Yiwei Li & Qiang Li, 2015. "Collaboration strategies and effects on university research: evidence from Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 725-749, May.
    21. Sergio Salles-Filho & Adriana Bin & Kleinsy Bonilla & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2021. "Effectiveness by Design: Overcoming Orientation and Transaction Related Barriers in Research-Industry Linkages," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 25(5), pages 190346-1903.
    22. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.

    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:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:7:p:541-553. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/spp .

    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.