Elsevier

Research Policy

Volume 35, Issue 10, December 2006, Pages 1569-1585
Research Policy

Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.025Get rights and content

Abstract

Which university departments engaged in industrially relevant science are likely candidates to become entrepreneurial? At present, there are neither measurement models nor leading indicators that can answer such questions at an international comparative level. This paper introduces concepts, theory, and a measurement model for identifying (the early stages of) a university's enterpreneurial orientation within a quantitative analytical framework. This approach focuses specifically on university–industry interactions, in which the connectivity between academic science and industrial research is captured and measured empirically in terms of (1) public–private co-authored research articles, and (2) references (‘citations’) within corporate research articles to university research articles.

The paper examines a range of country-level and institutional determinants of industrially relevant science, across 18 research areas of significant industrial interest, and at two different levels of analysis: research systems of OECD countries, and large sets of research universities within those countries. The results of these large-scale analyses, along with those of a case study dealing with European universities active in the field of immunology research, suggest that many structural factors determine university–industry interactions and (the potential for) entrepreneurial orientation. The two connectivity indicators appear to be of minor significance compared to a university's country of location and the magnitude of its research activities in industrially relevant fields of science.

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)

  • J.B. Powers et al.

    University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship

    Journal of Business Venturing

    (2005)
  • N. Rosenberg

    Why do firms do basic research with their own money?

    Research Policy

    (1990)
  • D. Siegel et al.

    Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study

    Research Policy

    (2003)
  • R.J.W. Tijssen

    Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science/technology interactions and knowledge spill-overs

    Research Policy

    (2001)
  • R.J.W. Tijssen

    Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles

    Research Policy

    (2004)
  • B. Van Looy et al.

    Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect

    Research Policy

    (2004)
  • J.D. Adams

    Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth

    Journal of Political Economy

    (1990)
  • J.M. Bercovitz et al.

    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

    (1990)
  • L.M. Branscomb et al.

    Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States

    (1999)
  • F. Cesaroni et al.

    Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) in Italian universities: what do they do and how they do it

  • V. Chiesa et al.

    Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy

    R&D Management

    (2000)
  • B.R. Clark

    Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation

    (1998)
  • View full text