IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i5p686-698..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of success in university–industry cooperation literature: A bibliographic coupling analysis
[University-industry Relations and Research Group Production: Is There a Bidirectional Relationship?]

Author

Listed:
  • Eva-María Mora-Valentín
  • Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez
  • Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado

Abstract

University–industry relationships have been central in technology and management innovation literature for decades. Success has been one of the most relevant topics in this field, driving a high proportion of this research. Our objective is to analyze this literature. Based on a framework of the motivations and expected benefits of the partners, classifying them into six categories (technological, strategic, financial, educational, political and epistemological), we have carried out a bibliographic coupling analysis to determine the topic’s knowledge structure. We show how these themes have evolved, with some remaining central during the entire timeframe and others gaining academics’ attention in recent years. We offer a research schedule and a dynamic, interpretative model that classifies and organizes the motivations of success for university–industry collaboration. This analysis can help in the formulation and implementation of public and private programs that aim to promote cooperation between firms and universities.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva-María Mora-Valentín & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2022. "Assessment of success in university–industry cooperation literature: A bibliographic coupling analysis [University-industry Relations and Research Group Production: Is There a Bidirectional Relatio," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 686-698.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:686-698.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac019
    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.

    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:49:y:2022:i:5:p:686-698.. 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.