IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i2p174-185..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Universities, knowledge exchange and policy: A comparative study of Ireland and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Qiantao Zhang
  • Charles Larkin
  • Brian M. Lucey

Abstract

This paper aims to provide one of the first cross-country empirical analyses of the intensity and diversity of knowledge exchange activities by academics. Focusing on the wide perspective of knowledge exchange, the results are based on two large-scale surveys with academics in the UK and Ireland and compare them in terms of: modes of interactions, types of partners, motivations and impacts of interactions, constraints on interactions and mission of higher education perceived by academics. It is found that academics in both countries are involved in a wide range of activities, with intellectual property activities being the interactions that they are least frequently engaged in. However, academics working at Irish and UK universities show distinct patterns of interactions with private sector companies and public sector organisations. Our analysis calls for caution over one country seeking to borrow policies from another without understanding the specific context of the higher education sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiantao Zhang & Charles Larkin & Brian M. Lucey, 2017. "Universities, knowledge exchange and policy: A comparative study of Ireland and the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 174-185.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:174-185.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw047
    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. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    2. Fumi Kitagawa & Claire Lightowler, 2012. "Knowledge exchange: A comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, December.
    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. Qiantao A. Zhang & Brian M. Lucey, 2019. "Globalisation, the Mobility of Skilled Workers, and Economic Growth: Constructing a Novel Brain Drain/Gain Index for European Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1620-1642, December.

    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. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    2. Matthew Ainurul Rosli & Federica Rossi, 2015. "Monitoring the knowledge transfer performance of universities: An international comparison of models and indicators," Working Papers 24, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Jul 2015.
    3. 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.
    4. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    5. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    6. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Doherr, Thorsten & Hussinger, Katrin & Schliessler, Paula & Toole, Andrew A., 2016. "Knowledge Creates Markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 131-146.
    7. 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.
    8. Mario BENASSI & Matteo LANDONI & Francesco RENTOCCHINI, 2017. "University Management Practices and Academic Spin-offs," Departmental Working Papers 2017-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Catalina Martinez & Lydia Bares, 2018. "The link between technology transfer and international extension of university patents: Evidence from Spain," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 827-842.
    10. Rippa, Pierluigi & Secundo, Giustina, 2019. "Digital academic entrepreneurship: The potential of digital technologies on academic entrepreneurship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 900-911.
    11. 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.
    12. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Erika Färnstrand Damsgaard & Marie C. Thursby, 2013. "University entrepreneurship and professor privilege," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 183-218, February.
    14. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.
    15. Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Muramatsu, Shingo, 2012. "Examining the university industry collaboration policy in Japan: Patent analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 149-162.
    16. Ampere A. Tseng & Miroslav Raudensky, 2014. "Assessments of technology transfer activities of US universities and associated impact of Bayh–Dole Act," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1851-1869, December.
    17. Roya Ghafele & Benjamin Gibert, 2014. "IP Commercialization Tactics in Developing Country Contexts," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(2), pages 1-15, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Einar Rasmussen & Paul Benneworth & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2013. "Scoping paper: Developing University Innovation Capacity: How can innovation policy effectively harness universities’ capability to promote high-growth technology businesses?," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20131007, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    20. Barry Bozeman & Albert N. Link, 2015. "Toward an assessment of impacts from US technology and innovation policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 369-376.

    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:44:y:2017:i:2:p:174-185.. 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/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.