Elsevier

Research Policy

Volume 28, Issue 8, November 1999, Pages 873-890
Research Policy

Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic–industrial relations and intellectual property

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00028-1Get rights and content

Abstract

The commercialisation of the public sector research base, and in particular academic research, has been a continuing preoccupation among policy makers around the world. Empirically, these issues are explored in the management of intellectual property in university spin-offs (USOs) that emerge through both informal and formal linkages with universities across three sectors. The paper utilises a recently developed methodology to map knowledge flows as well as linkages between organisations. This enables us to examine the exchange of knowledge in commercial and academic networks and the implications of changes in the sponsorship, ownership, and proprietary status of knowledge for these patterns of exchange. It is argued that some of the most important points of tension between universities and the firms studied derive from misconceptions in the value of intellectual property rights.

Section snippets

Policy context

The changes in public–private relations associated with the growing commercial orientation of science and technology policies in the UK and elsewhere have been the subject of considerable analysis and debate. Attempts at presenting such changes as a `win–win' situation aside (e.g., Scottish Enterprise and The Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1996), the developments raise a number of serious questions. Economists such as Dasgupta and David (1993)make claims indicative of many in fearing that attempts

Research methodology and methods

The research presented builds on previous work that has considered both formal and informal university–firm linkages. Many of our generic findings related to linkage concur with similar studies (e.g., Bell, 1993, Faulkner and Senker, 1995; Bonaccorsi and Piccaluga, 1994; Westhead and Storey, 1995; Westhead and Batstone, 1996), though we will argue that sector-specific dynamics play a significant role in shaping the pattern of relations. In addition, however, the research reported here goes

Linkages

Table 2 presents comparative information on the extent and range of formal linkages of USOs with universities. As the table indicates, the firms interviewed engaged in a wide range of linkages with universities. Overall, no one sector is exceptionally active compared to the others, though IT firms have the highest number of links relative to the number of firms interviewed. Of course, these numbers hide a considerable amount of diversity in linkages and the extent of linkages should not be seen

Cross-sector differences and similarities

Two key concerns shaped this research project: what benefits do the firms receive from universities and how is this secured? While linkage activity varies with regard to sector, firm size, availability of academic expertise, public policy, whether academics are customers of the technology, and the character of the technology it is possible to make some general comments. With regard to formal links, consultancy is the most common form across the sectors. Cataloguing formal relations only

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to further the debate on academic–industrial relations by focusing on USOs, bringing a relatively new methodology to bear on mapping STI flows and linkage, and considering in some detail the associated handling of intellectual property. In doing so it has raised a number of tensions in current UK public policy with regard to universities. We began by asking a few questions: What is the extent of academic–industry linkages, what are the main benefits for industry of

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (award no. L323253035) and forms part of the ESRC's wider Programme on Intellectual Property. The authors would like to thank Paul Windrum, Gareth Potts for their contributions to this research project.

References (38)

  • E Autio

    `Atomistic' and `systemic' approaches to research on new, technology-based firms

    Small Business Economics

    (1997)
  • E Bell

    Some current issues in technology transfer and academic–industrial relations

    Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

    (1993)
  • A Bonaccorsi et al.

    A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships

    R&D Management

    (1994)
  • Burchell, B., Wilkinson, F., 1996. Trust, business relations and the contractual environment, WP35. ESRC Centre for...
  • M Callon

    Is science a public good?

    Science, Technology, and Human Values

    (1994)
  • Charles, D., Howells, J., 1992. Technology Transfer in Europe. Belhaven Press,...
  • Charles, D., Rappert, B., Webster, A., Windrum, P., 1998. The commercialisation of university research in the local...
  • P Dasgupta et al.

    Towards a new economy of science

    Research Policy

    (1993)
  • David, P., 1995. Science reorganised? Presentation at the International Symposium on Measuring the Impacts of R&D,...

    • Cited by (137)

    • Spin doctors vs the spawn of capitalism: Who founds university and corporate startups?

      2021, Research Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      We define university startup entrepreneurs as persons who are employed at a university in year t and work in a new firm in year t+1. Our mobility-based definition aligns with existing studies (Druilhe and Garnsey, 2003; Fini et al., 2011; Rappert et al., 1999; Steffenson et al., 1999; Visintin and Pittino, 2014). It is, however, broader than Shane (2004) or much existing literature that requires both a mobility event to occur and the formal transfer of IP from the university to the startups (Clarysse and Moray, 2004; Colombo et al., 2010; Nicolaou and Birley, 2003a, b; Rothaermel et al., 2007; Zahra et al., 2007).

    • Collaboration with higher education institutions for successful firm innovation

      2019, Journal of Business Research

    • University-industry scientific production and the Great Recession

      2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change

    • Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent

      2017, Research Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Similarly, D’Este and Patel (2007) show that researchers with previous experience of one knowledge transfer channel are more likely to be involved in transferring knowledge through other types of channels in the future. Rappert et al. (1999) find that informal contacts among university and industry actors can create the trust necessary for formal engagement. However, this was not the focus of their work and was not further developed.

    • Wages in high-tech start-ups – Do academic spin-offs pay a wage premium?

      2017, Research Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The founders (or at least one member of the team of founders) of a spin-off either must have studied or must have worked at a university. The latter group comprises not only university researchers but also academic and non-academic staff members, e.g., lecturers or technical staff (Rappert et al., 1999; Smilor et al., 1990). The formation of spin-offs by former university employees further involves at least a partial employment transition of the university employee from academia to the spin-off, although the university employee may remain affiliated with the incubator university.

    • Pluralistic Collaboration in Science and Technology: Reviewing Knowledge Systems, Culture, Norms, and Work Styles

      2023, Science Technology and Human Values
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.