IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sol/wpaper/2013-85726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

University-Industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: a critical survey

Author

Listed:
  • Azele Mathieu

Abstract

This article reviews the literature on knowledge transfer mechanisms (KTMs) used in university-industry interactions. The literature may be articulated around four dimensions: (i) the relative importance of KTM as perceived by the involved stakeholders, (ii) the factors affecting the organisation of university-industry interactions, (iii) the interrelatedness of different KTMs and, (iv) the impact of increased university-interactions on traditional academic missions. An outstanding fact stemming from this review is that spin-offs and patents are not considered by the university and the industry as the most important KTMs. Traditional KTMs, such as publications or collaborative research however, are perceived as more significant ways of transferring knowledge. A large variety of factors influence the use of a KTM (for instance, characteristics of researchers or of the involved firms). While some trends may be outlined, not much is known so far about the interweaving of different KTMs. Consequently, no simple model of knowledge transfer between universities and the business sector is possible, and should certainly not be restricted to “new” KTMs. As regards to the risks of increased reliance of university on the business sector, I suggest that those risks could be limited under some conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Azele Mathieu, 2011. "University-Industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: a critical survey," Working Papers CEB 11-015, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:sol:wpaper:2013/85726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/85726/3/wp11015.pdf
    File Function: wp11015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J Calvert & P Patel, 2003. "University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 85-96, April.
    2. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    3. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    4. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2008. "Patents and academic research: a state of the art," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6187, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Di Gregorio, Dante & Shane, Scott, 2003. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 209-227, February.
    6. Owen-Smith, Jason, 2003. "From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1081-1104, June.
    7. O'Shea, Rory P. & Allen, Thomas J. & Chevalier, Arnaud & Roche, Frank, 2005. "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    8. Joaquín Azagra-Caro & Nicolas Carayol & Patrick Llerena, 2006. "Patent Production at a European Research University: Exploratory Evidence at the Laboratory Level," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 257-268, March.
    9. Van Looy, Bart & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad, 2006. "Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 596-608, May.
    10. Van Looy, Bart & Ranga, Marina & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad & Zimmermann, Edwin, 2004. "Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-441, April.
    11. Van Looy, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Callaert, Julie & van Pottelsberghe, Bruno & Sapsalis, Eleftherios & Debackere, Koenraad, 2011. "Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 553-564, May.
    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. A. Bellucci & L. Pennacchio, 2016. "University knowledge and firm innovation: evidence from European countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 730-752, August.
    2. Maximilian Unger & Giulia Ajmone Marsan & Dirk Meissner & Wolfgang Polt & Mario Cervantes, 2020. "New challenges for universities in the knowledge triangle," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 806-819, June.
    3. Cristina Serbanica & Gabriela Dragan, 2012. "University – Industry Cooperation In Central And Eastern Europe: A Common Past, A Different Future?," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 4(4), pages 837-852, December.
    4. Anja Schoen & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Joachim Henkel, 2014. "Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 435-453, June.
    5. Cristina Bianca Pocol & Liana Stanca & Dan-Cristian Dabija & Veronica Câmpian & Sergiu Mișcoiu & Ioana Delia Pop, 2023. "A QCA Analysis of Knowledge Co-Creation Based on University–Industry Relationships," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. repec:jes:wpaper:y:2012:v:4:p:837-852 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Maximilian Unger & Wolfgang Polt, 2017. "The Knowledge Triangle between Research, Education and Innovation – A Conceptual Discussion," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 10-26.
    8. Ann Camilla Schulze-Krogh & Giuseppe Calignano, 2020. "How Do Firms Perceive Interactions with Researchers in Small Innovation Projects? Advantages and Barriers for Satisfactory Collaborations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 908-930, September.
    9. Cristina Şerbănică & Gabriela Drăgan, 2012. "University – Industry Cooperation In Central And Eastern Europe: A Common Past, A Different Future?," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 7(4), pages 12-27, 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. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Gümüsay, Ali Aslan & Bohné, Thomas Marc, 2018. "Individual and organizational inhibitors to the development of entrepreneurial competencies in universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 363-378.
    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. Landry, Réjean & Saïhi, Malek & Amara, Nabil & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2010. "Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1387-1403, December.
    6. Igors Skute & Kasia Zalewska-Kurek & Isabella Hatak & Petra Weerd-Nederhof, 2019. "Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 916-947, June.
    7. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    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. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    10. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    11. Berna Beyhan & M. Teoman Pamukçu & Erkan Erdil, 2011. "Individual and Organizational Aspects of University-Industry Relations in Nanotechnology: The Turkish Case," STPS Working Papers 1106, STPS - Science and Technology Policy Studies Center, Middle East Technical University, revised Jun 2011.
    12. Bernd Wurth & Niall G. MacKenzie & Susan Howick, 2024. "Not seeing the forest for the trees? A systems approach to the entrepreneurial university," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 1-24, August.
    13. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Luisa Mota, 2012. "A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 719-743, December.
    14. Maximilian Goethner & Michael Wyrwich, 2020. "Cross-faculty proximity and academic entrepreneurship: the role of business schools," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1016-1062, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Indira Yarullina, 2024. "Outcomes of science-industry collaboration: factors and interdependencies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 542-580, April.
    17. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    18. Marina van Geenhuizen, 2013. "Valorization of university knowledge: what are the barriers and can ‘living labs’ provide solutions?," Chapters, in: Tüzin Baycan (ed.), Knowledge Commercialization and Valorization in Regional Economic Development, chapter 7, pages 135-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    20. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knowledge transfer mechanisms; University-industry interactions; Impact on academic research;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L30 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sol:wpaper:2013/85726. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebulbe.html .

    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.