nach oben

Erschienen in:

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. The Policy Mix to Promote University-Industry Knowledge Transfer: A Conceptual Framework

verfasst von : José Guimón, Caroline Paunov

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

Countries deploy a variety of policy instruments to promote university-industry knowledge transfer. While these instruments are often discussed in isolation, they are implemented collectively and may reinforce and complement but also weaken or even negatively affect each other. This chapter presents a conceptual framework to map policy instruments for knowledge transfer and assess the interactions between them. Positive interactions occur, for example, when a new grant scheme to support spin-offs is accompanied by the adoption of more flexible regulations regarding the participation of university professors in firms, leading to a stronger combined impact. In contrast, negative interactions are associated with potential contradictions between policy instruments or with the coexistence of various policies targeting simultaneously the same types of actors, which increases complexity, creates confusion and results in higher administrative costs. The conceptual framework developed in this chapter also aims to explain how the choice of policy instruments is influenced by national contexts and broader international trends. This framework is a useful tool for those involved in the design and evaluation of university-industry knowledge transfer policies, while offering a broad point of departure for future research.

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 Rethinking the Role of Productive Interactions in Explaining SSH Research Societal Impacts: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Productive Science System Dynamics

Nächstes Kapitel Determinants of Contract Renewals in University–Industry Contract Research: Going my Way, or Good Sam?

The full results of this Project, including various policy papers, workshop reports and national case studies, are available at: http://oe.cd/colab

Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: Conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 473–484.

Azagra-Caro, J. M., Tijssen, R. J., Tur, E. M., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2019). University-industry scientific production and the Great Recession. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139, 210–220.

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853.

Belderbos, R., Sleuwaegen, L., Somers, D., & De Backer, K. (2016). Where to locate innovative activities in global value chains: does co-location matter? OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 30.

Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 2–16.

Borowiecki, M., & Paunov, C. (2018). How is research policy across the OECD organised? Insights from a new policy database. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2019). Holistic innovation policy: Theoretical foundations, policy problems, and instrument choices. Oxford University Press.

Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513–1522.

Borrás, S., & Laatsit, M. (2019). Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states. Research Policy, 48(1), 312–321.

Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research policy, 29(4-5), 627–655

Botero, M., Sánchez, A. E., & Pontón, J. (2019). Technology transfer in Colombia. Case study produced for the OECD TIP Knowledge Transfer Project. https://oe.cd/2xx

Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument mixes for environmental policy: How many stones should be used to kill a bird? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(2), 185–235.

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.

Caiazza, R. (2016). A cross-national analysis of policies affecting innovation diffusion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1406–1419.

Cartaxo, R. M., & Godinho, M. M. (2017). How institutional nature and available resources determine the performance of technology transfer offices. Industry and Innovation, 24(7), 713–734.

Clayton, P., Feldman, M., & Lowe, N. (2018). Behind the scenes: Intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 104–124.

Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2016). The effects of the economic crisis on public research: Spanish budgetary policies and research organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 157–167.

Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., & Larédo, P. (2016). The innovation policy mix. In J. Edler et al. (Eds.), Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 505–542). Edward Elgar.

Cunningham, P., & Gök, A. (2016). The impact of innovation policy schemes for collaboration. In J. Edler et al. (Eds.), Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 239–278). Edward Elgar.

De Silva, M., & Rossi, F. (2018). The effect of firms’ relational capabilities on knowledge acquisition and co-creation with universities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 72–84.

Edler, J., Berger, M., Dinges, M., & Gök, A. (2012). The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe. Research Evaluation, 21(3), 167–182.

Edler, J., Ebersberger, B., & Lo, V. (2008). Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 175–186.

Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576.

Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the “policy mix” for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.

Frølund, L., Murray, F., & Riedel, M. (2018). Developing successful strategic partnerships with universities. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter Issue, 71–79.

Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.

Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.

Guellec, D., & Paunov, C. (2018). Innovation policies in the digital age. In OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, 59. OCDE Publishing.

Guerzoni, M., & Raiteri, E. (2015). Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix. Research Policy, 44(3), 726–747.

Guimón, J., & Narula, R. (2019). When developing countries meet transnational universities: Searching for complementarity and dealing with dual embeddedness. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(3), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319835536CrossRef

Guimón, J., & Salazar-Elena, J. C. (2015). Collaboration in innovation between foreign subsidiaries and local universities: Evidence from Spain. Industry and Innovation, 22(6), 445–466.

Gulbrandsen, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2012). The use and development of indicators for the commercialisation of university research in a national support programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(5), 481–495.

Halme, K. et al. (2019). Overview of the policy mix for science-industry knowledge transfer in Finland, Case study produced for the OECD TIP Knowledge Transfer Project. https://oe.cd/2xx

Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.

Herstad, S. J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., & Van De Velde, E. (2010). National innovation policy and global open innovation: Exploring balances, tradeoffs and complementarities. Science and Public Policy, 37(2), 113–124.

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

Horta, H., & Patrício, M. T. (2016). Setting-up an international science partnership program: A case study between Portuguese and US research universities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 230–239.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.

Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2017). University-industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope: A study of the knowledge intensive business services sector. Papers in Regional Science, 96(2), 247–260.

Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.

Knill, C. (2005). Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774.

Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: A review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407–429.

Koschatzky, K., & Stahlecker, T. (2016). Public-private partnerships in research and innovation: Trends and international perspectives. Fraunhofer Verlag.

Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454.

Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., & Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction. Research Policy, 48(5), 1091–1097.

Lanahan, L., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program. Research Policy, 44(7), 1387–1402.

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

Larsen, K., Bandara, D. C., Esham, M., & Unantenne, R. (2016). Promoting university-industry collaboration in Sri Lanka: Status, case studies, and policy options. World Bank.

Lepori, B., Van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., & Van der Meulen, B. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.

Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 8, 31–57.

Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2019). Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies. Research Policy, 48(10), 1–10.

Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42(9), 1647–1656.

Mazzucato, M. (2011). The entrepreneurial state. Penguin.

Martin, B. R. (2016). R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 157–176.

OECD. (2019). Seizing the opportunities for digital innovation: Options for innovation policy. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2016a). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2016. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2016b). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Lithuania 2016. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2016c). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Malaysia 2016. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2013). Commercialising public research: New trends and strategies. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2011). Demand side innovation policy: Theory and practice in OECD countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2010). The innovation policy mix. In OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2017). Knowledge triangle synthesis report: Enhancing the contributions of higher education and research to innovation. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (2009). University governance. Western European comparative perspectives. Springer.

Paunov, C., Planes-Satorra, S., & Moriguchi, T. (2017). What role for social sciences in innovation? Reassessing how scientific disciplines contribute to different industries. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 45. OECD Publishing, Paris.

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

Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232.

Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635.

Russo, M., Caloffi, A., Rossi, F., & Righi, R. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and performance-based incentives: A case study of regional innovation poles. Science and Public Policy, 46(1), 1–12.

Seppo, M., Rõigas, K., & Varblane, U. (2014). Governmental support measures for university-industry cooperation-comparative view in Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 388–408.

Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 435–453.

Spilioti, A., Gongolidis, V., & Gypakis, A. (2019). Supporting the establishment and development of spin-offs, Greece. Case study produced for the TIP Knowledge Transfer Project. https://oe.cd/2xx

Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566.

Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2006). Where is the new science in corporate R&D? Science, 314, 1547–1548.

Tonurist, P. (2015). Framework for analysing the role of state owned enterprises in innovation policy management: The case of energy technologies and Eesti Energia. Technovation, 38, 1–14.

Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., & Kraines, S. B. (2013). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179.

Veugelers, R. (2015). Mixing and matching research and innovation policies in EU countries. Bruegel Working Paper 2015/16.

West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.

Williamson, C., & Allard, G. (2018). University – Industry collaboration in R&D: The role of labor market rigidity. R&D Management, 48(4), 410–421.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.

Titel: The Policy Mix to Promote University-Industry Knowledge Transfer: A Conceptual Framework
verfasst von: José Guimón
Caroline Paunov
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_5

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