nach oben

Erschienen in:

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. PhDs with Industry Partners – Assessing Collaboration and Topic Distribution Using a Text Mining Methodology

verfasst von : Kilian Buehling, Matthias Geissler

Erschienen in: University-Industry Knowledge Interactions

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Collaboration between universities and industry partners is thought to facilitate knowledge diffusion and provide resources and new ideas for academic researchers. However, recent evidence also suggests a possible trade-off or cost with regard to individual productivity. Given its focus on quantitative output, the literature is rather silent on possible qualitative shifts in researchers’ agendas when engaging with industry partners. We contribute to a discussion on potential negative effects of university-industry engagement by comparing the topic distributions of PhD theses based on collaborative and noncollaborative research. The results indicate little difference between the two kinds of dissertation projects. We conclude that fears of agenda setting in collaborative research are unwarranted.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction: People, Tensions and Impact in University Interactions

Nächstes Kapitel The Heterogeneous Impact of Academic Patent Characteristics on Firms’ Economic Performance

We are aware that our second restriction leaves room for discussion and leads to a somewhat blurred understanding of “collaboration”. However, constructing the training sample for the classification algorithm and subsequently doing a fair amount of manual classification convinced us that donating sample materials or allowing the use of equipment did not necessarily involve an element of knowledge exchange. Firms also engage in these “giveaways” for strategic reasons, for example to expand the diffusion of specific materials/equipment among the scientific community. Notwithstanding the fact that firms may benefit from this kind of activities to some extent, we believe it is not justified to label these actions as “collaboration”.

For topic distributions following “Cao” the results did not significantly differ from 0. As the three procedures were based on different methods to determine the optimal topic number, the “Cao” procedure seems to systematically estimate a lower number. The mean number of topics according to the “Cao” procedure was 5.5 in our setting, whereas the “Griffith” and “Arun” procedures presented an average of 14.3 and 14.1 topics, respectively.

In an unreported variant, we employed a university fixed-effect model with no significant effect on the estimated coefficients.

Initial fears of “collaborative” dissertations being treated differently may be soothed by talks at a practitioner conference that assure researchers that the German bureaucracy treats all dissertations equally.

Arun, R., Suresh, V., Veni Madhavan, C. E., & Narasimha Murthy, M. N. (2010). On finding the natural number of topics with latent Dirichlet allocation: Some observations. In M. J. Zaki, J. X. Yu, B. Ravindran, & V. Pudi (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 391–402). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.CrossRef

Azagra-Caro, J. M., & Consoli, D. (2016). Knowledge flows, the influence of national R&D structure and the moderating role of public–private cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 152–172.CrossRef

Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged Sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175.CrossRef

Bikard, M., Vakili, K., & Teodoridis, F. (2018). When collaboration bridges institutions: The impact of university–industry collaboration on academic productivity. Organization Science., 30, 426.CrossRef

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.

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.CrossRef

Cao, J., Xia, T., Li, J., Zhang, Y., & Tang, S. (2009). A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing, 72(7–9), 1775–1781.CrossRef

Choi, H., Oh, S., Choi, S., & Yoon, J. (2018). Innovation topic analysis of technology: The case of augmented reality patents. IEEE Access, 6, 16119–16137.

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.CrossRef

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Fudickar, R., Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2018). What’s the price of academic consulting? Effects of public and private sector consulting on academic research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(4), 699–722.CrossRef

Giles, C. L., & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 17599–17604.CrossRef

Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5228–5235.CrossRef

Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2014). Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(2), 109–133.CrossRef

Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos, 64(4), 534–555.CrossRef

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRef

Joachims, T. (2001). A statistical learning learning model of text classification for support vector machines. In Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 128–136. SIGIR ‘01). ACM.CrossRef

Korobkin, D., Fomenkov, S., Kravets, A., & Kolesnikov, S. (2017). Methods of statistical and semantic patent analysis. In A. Kravets, M. Shcherbakov, M. Kultsova, & P. Groumpos (Hrsg.), Creativity in intelligent technologies and data science (pp. 48–61). Springer International Publishing.

Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.CrossRef

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRef

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

Lodhi, H., Saunders, C., Shawe-Taylor, J., Cristianini, N., & Watkins, C. (2002). Text classification using string kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2(Feb), 419–444.

Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Carrión-García, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2009). The effects of university–industry relationships and academic research on scientific performance: Synergy or substitution? Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 795.CrossRef

Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2008). Coexistence of university-industry relations and academic research: Barrier to or incentive for scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 76(3), 561–576.CrossRef

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRef

Morichika, N., & Shibayama, S. (2016). Use of dissertation data in science policy research. Scientometrics, 108(1), 221–241.CrossRef

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, Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual engines of growth, 63(4), 648–687.CrossRef

Ooms, W., Werker, C., & Hopp, C. (2018). Moving up the ladder: Heterogeneity influencing academic careers through research orientation, gender, and mentors. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 1–22.

Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2017). The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 80–87.CrossRef

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Salimi, N., Bekkers, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Does working with industry come at a price? A study of doctoral candidates’ performance in collaborative vs. non-collaborative Ph.D. projects. Technovation, 41–42(July), 51–61.CrossRef

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

Sun, A., Lim, E. P., & Liu, Y. (2009). On strategies for imbalanced text classification using SVM: A comparative study. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 191–201.CrossRef

Suominen, A., Toivanen, H., & Seppänen, M. (2017). Firms’ knowledge profiles: Mapping patent data with unsupervised learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 131–142.

Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147.CrossRef

Van Looy, Bart, M. R., 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.CrossRef

Von Hayek, & August, F. (1989). The pretence of knowledge. The American Economic Review, 79(6), 3–7.

Wei, X., & Croft, W. B. (2006). LDA-based document models for Ad-Hoc retrieval. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 178–185). ACM.CrossRef

Woltmann, S., Clemmensen, L. H., & Alkærsig, L. (2016). From university research to innovation detecting knowledge transfer via text mining. In 21st international conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2016) science and technology indicators conference.

Yan, E., Ding, Y., Milojević, S., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2012). Topics in dynamic research communities: An exploratory study for the field of information retrieval. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 140–153.CrossRef

Yau, C.-K., Porter, A., Newman, N., & Suominen, A. (2014). Clustering scientific documents with topic modeling. Scientometrics, 100(3), 767–786.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Titel: PhDs with Industry Partners – Assessing Collaboration and Topic Distribution Using a Text Mining Methodology
verfasst von: Kilian Buehling
Matthias Geissler
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: University-Industry Knowledge Interactions
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84668-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-84669-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84669-5_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner