Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is abundant evidence that research collaboration has become the norm in every field of scientific and technical research. We provide a critical overview of the literature on research collaboration, focusing particularly on individual-level collaborations among university researchers, but we also give attention to university researchers’ collaborations with researchers in other sectors, including industry. We consider collaborations aimed chiefly at expanding the base of knowledge (knowledge-focused collaborations) as well as ones focused on production of economic value and wealth (property-focused collaborations), the latter including most academic entrepreneurship research collaborations. To help organize our review we develop a framework for analysis, one that considers attributes of collaborators, collaborative process and organization characteristics as the affect collaboration choices and outcomes. In addition, we develop and use a “Propositional Table for Research Collaboration Literature,” presented as an “Appendix” to this study. We conclude with some suggestions for possible improvement in research on collaboration including: (1) more attention to multiple levels of analysis and the interactions among them; (2) more careful measurement of impacts as opposed to outputs; (3) more studies on ‘malpractice’ in collaboration, including exploitation; (4) increased attention to collaborators’ motives and the social psychology of collaborative teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is evidence that industry collaborations with universities most often produce increased knowledge-focused outputs rather than property-focused outputs (Levy et al. 2009). Given private industry’s profit-maximizing goal, however, we would expect firms to be motivated by increased property-focused outputs to engage in collaborative projects.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information with the R&D organization. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschoff, B., & Grimpe, C. (2011). Localized norms and academics’ industry involvement: The moderating role of age on professional imprinting. Unpublished paper downloaded February 3, 2012 from http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/innovationpatenting2011/papers/Grimpe.pdf.

  • Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. B. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Reward systems and NSF university research centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (in press). Academic faculty working in university research centers: Neither capitalism’s slaves nor teaching fugitives. The Journal of Higher Education.

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7), 716–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaboration motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. (2002). A churn model of knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31(4), 769–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Gaughan, M. (2012). The “dark side” of academic research collaborations: Case studies in exploitation, bullying and unethical behavior. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) October 17–20, 2012, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buisseret, T. J., Cameron, H. M., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make additionality in the public support of RD in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4–5), 587–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University–industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Laget, P. (2004). Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: Public‐private, EU–US R&D partnerships. R&D Management, 34(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D. B., & Dozier, K. (1995). Technology transfer and academic education with a focus on diversity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(3), 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chompalov, I., Genuth, J., & Shrum, W. (2002). The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy, 31(5), 749–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chompalov, I., & Shrum, W. (1999). Institutional collaboration in science: A typology of technological practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 24(3), 338–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. Y. (2011). Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(5), 514–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Mustar, P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, 38(10), 1517–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. B., Tarnow, E., & De Young, B. R. (2004). Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survey-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. Medscape General Medicine, 63(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, S., & Wakoh, H. (2000). Universities and technology transfer in Japan: Recent reforms in historical perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. H. (2009). Commercialization of the university and problem choice by academic biological scientists. Science Technology Human Values, 34(5), 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M. M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, E. B., Beney, J., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Equity, accountability, transparency: Implementation of the contributorship concept in a multi-site study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(4), 455–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R., & Goel, R. K. (2010). Returns to networking in academia. Netnomics, 11(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I., & Feldman, M. (2010). The commercialization of academic patents: Black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 597–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I., & Roessner, D. (1995). What does industry expect from university partnerships? Congress wants to see bottom-line results from industry/government programs, but that’s not what the participating companies are seeking. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(1), 80–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., & Mohapta, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2001). A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 51(10), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2010). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities: The impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30(3), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (1986). The role of industrial advisory boards in technology transfer between universities and industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 10(2), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K., & Grimpe, C. (2011) Active versus passive academic networking: Evidence from micro-level data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9236-5.

  • Gray, D. O., & Steenhuis, H. J. (2003). Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance. Scientometrics, 58(2), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Kathoefer, D., & Leker, J. (2010). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the not-invented-here syndrome. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, J. H., Reid, P. P., & Morgan, R. P. (2001). Contributions of academic research to industrial performance in five industry sectors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). From R&D to productivity growth: Do the institutional settings and the source of funds of R&D matter? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (1999). Convergence between Europe and America: The transition from industrial to innovation policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smedby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnership. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–University collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R. D., & Smilor, R. W. (1988). The university and business incubation: Technology transfer through entrepreneurial development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 13(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. S. (2010). International collaboration and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. F., & Yu, C. M. J. (2011). The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(4), 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, J. E. (1999). Trends in academic research spending, alliances, and commercialization. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. H. A. (2009). Intermediates in triple helix collaboration: The roles of 4th pillar organisations in public to private technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 8(2), 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2012). Perspective: Adopting an asset bundles model to support and advance minority students’ careers in academic medicine and the scientific pipeline. Academic Medicine, 87(11), 1488–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (2000). Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingensmith, M. E., & Anderson, K. A. (2006). Educational scholarship as a route to academic promotion: A depiction of surgical education scholars. The American Journal of Surgery, 191(4), 533–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagnado, M. (2003). Professional writing assistance: Effects on biomedical publishing. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R. J., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levsky, M. E., Rosin, A., Coon, T. P., Enslow, W. L., & Miller, M. A. (2007). A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995–2005. Southern Medical Journal, 100(4), 371–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, R., Roux, P., & Wolff, S. (2009). An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 747–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2012). Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & corporate change. Research Policy, 16(4), 641–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., Chang, B., & Chen, K. (2012). Collaboration patterns of Taiwanese scientific publications in various research areas. Scientometrics, 29(1), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29(6), 711–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marusić, M., Bozikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gaspić, M., & Marusić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matt, M., Robin, S., & Wolff, S. (2011). The influence of public programs on inter-firm R&D collaboration strategies: Project-level evidence from EU FP5 and FP6. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9232-9.

  • Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Nilsson, A., & Sundberg, C. (2008). Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU. Scientometrics, 75(3), 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrary, S., Anderson, C., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., McCullough, L., Wray, N., et al. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343(22), 1621–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect. Social Forces, 74(2), 379–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 501–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. P., Kruytbosch, C., & Kannankutty, N. (2001). Patenting and invention activity of US scientists and engineers in the academic sector: Comparisons with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. P., & Strickland, D. E. (2001). U.S. university research contributions to industry. Science and Public Policy, 28(2), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Patenting and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the history of the research corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 317–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, P. D., & Ramirez, G. (2006). The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2003). The impact of academic research on industrial performance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedeva, M., Georghiou, L., & Halfpenny, P. (1999). Benefactors or beneficiary: The role of industry in the support of university research equipment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2006). Introduction to the symposium: Universities as a source of commercial technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichini, S., Pulido, M., & García-Algar, O. (2005). Authorship in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: An author’s position and its value. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 173–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, K. I., & Niemann, Y. F. (1998). Black and white tokens in academia: A difference of chronic versus acute Distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 954–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R. (2009). The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 76–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2008). The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39, 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poyago‐Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pravdić, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle and Nerve, 24(10), 1097–4598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 469–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Flannagin, A., & Yank, Y. (2000). The contribution of authors. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 89–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Academic Labor, 51, 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., Chompalov, I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 681–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Folleman, M. H., & Morgan, E. (2002). The ‘traffic’ in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(2), 282–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, T. D., & Hartley, J. A. (1989). Coauthorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2011). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: Bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns. Scientometrics, 88(2), 471–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Woolley, R. (2011). Cross-sector research collaboration in Australia: The Cooperative Research Centres Program at the crossroads. Science & Public Policy, 38(2), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40(9), 1269–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiadou, E. (2012). Research teams as complex systems: Implications for knowledge management. Knowledge Management of Research Practice, 10(2), 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright, S. P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., & Cribb, A. (2006). Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(6), 1467–9566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R., Glenn, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ynalvez, M., & Shrum, W. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40(2), 204–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Barry Bozeman & Daniel Fay

  2. Georgia Regents University Augusta, Augusta, GA, USA

    Catherine P. Slade

Authors
  1. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Fay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine P. Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Bozeman.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Propositional table for research collaboration art literature review
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bozeman, B., Fay, D. & Slade, C.P. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. J Technol Transf 38, 1–67 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation