Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation
Introduction
This paper introduces a novel conceptual and analytical framework to conduct comprehensive and in-depth analyses of university's ‘industrially relevant research’ (IRR) in relation to the science-based entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) of university units. The scope of this paper is restricted to research-related activities, outcomes and impacts (thus excluding teaching, training, and consultancy activities with a commercial value). The earliest stages of SEO can be examined by looking at structural characteristics and abstract functions related to academic research activities, which are operationalised in terms of their research output, and their linkages and interactions with private-sector users of their research-based knowledge. The approach taken in this study focuses specifically on quantifiable information related to the production of codified research-based knowledge and its dissemination to science-dependent industrial R&D.1
The phenomenon of entrepreneurial universities has now become widespread within the advanced industrialised countries as well as developing countries, and has attracted increasing policy attention. So far, most of the policy debate and empirical analysis focused on economic outputs and impacts of entrepreneurial universities (such as patents, licenses and start-up firms), or their technology transfer mechanisms and facilities. The pervasive diffusion of this entrepreneurial orientation justifies larger-scale and more in-depth empirical studies focusing on enterpreneurial potential. The analytical framework introduced in this paper enables a systematic investigation of early ‘upstream’ knowledge-generating stages of entrepreneurial science and university/industry interactions, both within and across and fields of science, as well as across countries.
The remainder of paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents a brief review of theoretical concepts, empirical studies and policy issues related to entrepreneurial science that may guide the development of an indicator-based comparative framework. Section 3 introduces the two key indicators of IRR, and describes the methodology and data sets that are applied in the statistical analyses. Section 4 presents the results of the analyses dealing with the aggregate levels of countries and research fields. In addition, the statistical relationships between IRR indicators and university-owned patents are investigated for a sample of European universities active within the field of immunology research. Finally, Section 5 summarises the main findings, observations and interpretations leading to tentative conclusions as to the limitations and relevance of this new approach.
Section snippets
University–industry interactions and entrepreneurial orientation
Clark, 1998, Clark, 2004 introduces, from a higher education system perspective, five necessary conditions for the creation of an ‘entrepreneurial university’. Three of these are particularly relevant in the case of research-oriented entrepreneurial universities2
Methodology: information sources and indicators
A valid empirical analysis of SEO must take into account as many as possible of inputs, throughputs and outputs that shape and drive SEO-activities within phases 1, 2 and 3 of the entrepreneurial process. Phase 1 factors may relate to entrepreneurial awareness within the university unit, or industry's awareness of university research and researchers; phase 2 relates to university–industry interactions, such as contract research and joint research; phase 3 may include patents and licences, and
Comparison of OECD countries
The science-based entrepreneurial activities of academics, and the likelihood of possible future entrepreneurial activities, tends to be driven by a matching of personal ambitions and perceived business opportunities, the ultimate realisation of which is heavily dependent on enabling factors and limitations at both the institutional or sectoral level. These meso-level determinants are in turn driven and affected by regional or country-specific regulatory frameworks and economic conditions. A
Discussion and cautionary remarks
The underlying notion and guiding principle of this study is the process view of a research university, i.e. a university that is becoming more entrepreneurial through time, during which it will engage in university–industry research cooperation and contract research. Some features of the process towards university entrepreneurial science, and possibly also the potential for academic entrepreneurship, are amenable to comparative measurement and can be captured by the two connectivity indicators
Acknowledgements
This paper is partially based on results of a research project that was conducted in cooperation with INCENTIM (Cath. Univ. Leuven, Belgium) and funded by the European Commission/DG Research (contract no. HPV2-CT2001-00012). An extended version of this paper was presented at the Conference “The Role of Universities in Innovation Systems”, hosted by the European University Institute, Florence (Fiesole), Italy, 17–18 June 2005. I am greatly indebted to Thed van Leeuwen and Ed Noyons (CWTS), and
References (44)
- et al.
A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off
Journal of Business Venturing
(2004) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkage
Research Policy
(1998)Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university
Research Policy
(2003)Research and the practice of publication in industries
Research Policy
(1996)- et al.
Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property
Research Policy
(2003) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of the university–industry collaboration
Research Policy
(1996)- et al.
The economics of intellectual property at universities
International Journal of Industrial Organization
(2003) - et al.
The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: managerial and policy implications
Research Policy
(2005) - et al.
The increasing linkage between US technology and public science
Research Policy
(1997) - et al.
A stage model of academic spin-off creation
Technovation
(2002)
University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship
Journal of Business Venturing
Why do firms do basic research with their own money?
Research Policy
Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study
Research Policy
Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science/technology interactions and knowledge spill-overs
Research Policy
Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles
Research Policy
Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect
Research Policy
Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth
Journal of Political Economy
Organizational structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke John Hopkins and Penn State Universities
The Journal of Technology Transfer
Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States
Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) in Italian universities: what do they do and how they do it
Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy
R&D Management
Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation
Cited by (104)
What makes an entrepreneurial university? Institutional moderators of ecosystem impacts in a developing country
2024, Science and Public PolicyInnovating from university–industry collaboration: the mediating role of intellectual capital
2023, Journal of Intellectual CapitalThe Role of Supporting Factors on Patenting Activities in Emerging Entrepreneurial Universities
2023, IEEE Transactions on Engineering ManagementInvestigating the association between universities' corporate governance structure and the knowledge transfer performance outcomes
2022, European Journal of Innovation ManagementBest Practices in Knowledge Transfer: Insights from Top Universities
2022, Sustainability (Switzerland)