Abstract
The debate on the entrepreneurial university has raised questions about what motivates academic scientists to engage with industry. This paper provides evidence based on survey data for a large sample of UK investigators in the physical and engineering sciences. The results suggest that most academics engage with industry to further their research rather than to commercialize their knowledge. However, there are differences in terms of the channels of engagement. Patenting and spin-off company formation are motivated exclusively by commercialization whilst joint research, contract research and consulting are strongly informed by research-related motives. We conclude that policy should refrain from overly focusing on monetary incentives for industry engagement and consider a broader range of incentives for promoting interaction between academia and industry.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to data from the UK 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
Response rates (number of valid returned questionnaires relative to population surveyed) by discipline: Chemical Engineering, 35.6%; Chemistry, 35.9%; Civil Engineering, 35.5%; Computer Science, 30.2%; Electrical & Electronic Engineering, 34.7%; General Engineering, 39.7%; Mathematics, 38.4%; Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering, 36.9%; Metallurgy & Materials, 34.2%; and Physics, 32.7%.
See D’Este and Patel (2007) for a detailed description.
However, for patents, respondents were requested to report the actual number of patent applications.
Both variables log transformed.
Data on department finances and staff numbers are from www.hesa.ac.uk. Variables for industry and public research funding, and number of staff, were computed at department level as averages for the academic years 1998–1999 and 2000–2001. Public research funding refers to funding for research from any of the UK research councils. Finance data are in £’000. All variables log transformed.
The choice of these three categories (below 5, 5 and 5*) is based on the fact that the reference category accounts for a large proportion of departments: three categories produces a more even distribution of departments. Information on UK RAE 2001 is from: www.hero.ac.uk.
The 5 variables related to barriers are dichotomous variables which take the value 1 if the respondent assessed the barriers as very, or extremely important. The 5 barriers are: absence of established procedures to collaborate with industry; nature of my research not aligned with industry interests or needs; potential conflicts with industry regarding royalty payments from patents or other IP rights; short term orientation of industry research; and rules and regulations imposed by university or government funding agency. The results of the first-stage logistic regressions are available on request.
The two items where there were significant differences across engineering fields are: ‘feedback from industry’ and ‘access to equipment’.
References
Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Starkey, K. (2001). Industry-university cooperative research centers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 73–86.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. M. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.
Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.
Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The Triple-Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70(2), 301–332.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology—Implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361–1366.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229–247.
Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata Journal, 3(3), 278–294.
Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32(6), 887–908.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon: New York.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.
Feller, I. (1990). Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19(4), 335–348.
Florida, R., & Cohen, W. M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 589–610). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Glaser, B., & Bero, L. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 553–573.
Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2009). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer (in press).
Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9140-4.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2000). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 485–491.
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87–98.
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Kirby, D. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.
Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2), 185–205.
Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted the virtue of biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.
Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.
Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.
Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.
Lowe, R. A. (2006). Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 415–429.
Manning, W. G., Duan, N., & Rogers, W. H. (1987). Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 35(1), 59–82.
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1–12.
Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.
McKelvey, M., & Holmén, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning to compete in European universities: From social institution to knowledge business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. International edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
Moutinho, P., Fontes, M., Godinho, M. (2007). Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 355–377.
Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115–127.
Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8,9), 1389–1403.
Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.
Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 13–19.
Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471.
Noble, D. F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.
Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001a). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109–140.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001b). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.
Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109–119.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884–1891.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from qualitative and quantitative research in the US and UK. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 66–144.
Polanyi, M. (2000 [1962]). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 38:1–32.
Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 485–503.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
Roessner, J. D. (1993). What companies want from the Federal labs. Issues in Science and Technology, 10(1), 37–42.
Rosell, C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Have university knowledge flows narrowed? Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 38(1), 1–13.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303–328.
Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shane, S. A. (2005). Economic development through entrepreneurship: Government, university and business linkages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Siegel, D. S., & Zervos, V. (2002). Strategic research partnerships and economic performance: Empirical issues. Science and Public Policy, 29, 331–343.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 177–184.
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489–504.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J., & Wallsten, S. (1999). Public-private technology partnerships: Promises and pitfalls. American Behavioural Scientist, 43–73(1), 52–73.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Thursby, J. G. A., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. A. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59–72.
Tornquist, K. M., & Kallsen, L. A. (1994). Out of the ivory tower: Characteristics of institutions meeting the research needs of industry. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 523–539.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 251–276.
Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6(2), 283–311.
Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.
Woolgar, L. (2007). New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan. Research Policy, 36(8), 1261–1274.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12709–12716.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1972). Age, aging, and age structure in science. In M. W. Riley, M. Johnson, & A. Foner (Eds.), A sociology of age stratification (pp. 292–356). New York: Russell Sage.
Acknowledgments
We thank Virginia Acha, Thomas Astebro, Charles Baden-Fuller, Kate Bishop, Isabel Bodas de Araújo Freitas, Maryann Feldman, Roberto Fontana, Patrick Llerena, Ammon Salter, Naohiro Shichijo, Valentina Tartari, Finn Valentin, Jaider Vega-Jurado, John Walsh, Kathryn Walsh for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies. Previous versions of the paper were presented at the Triple Helix Conference (16–18 May 2007, Singapore), the AIM workshop ‘Exploring & Mapping University-Industry Relationships’ (21 May 2007, London) and the DIME plenary session at the DRUID Summer Conference (17–19 June 2009, Copenhagen). The authors acknowledge support from the Innovation and Productivity Grand Challenge (IPGC), an initiative of the Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/C534239/1). Markus Perkmann acknowledges funding from the Economic and Social Research Council via an AIM Practices Fellowship (RES-331-27-0063).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
D’Este, P., Perkmann, M. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J Technol Transf 36, 316–339 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
Keywords
- University-industry relations
- Joint research
- Collaborative research
- Commercialization
- Entrepreneurial university
- Motivation