[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/has/discpr/1419.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations Implications for measurement and policy

Author

Listed:
  • Attila Havas

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract
Business-academia (B-A) collaborations have been analysed by an extensive body of literature, taking many different angles, and using various sources and types of information (patent statistics, the Community Innovation Survey data, evidence from specific surveys, interviews, or case studies), but usually a given paper is relying on a single method, addressing one or two major research questions. In contrast, this paper tackles both R&D and innovation collaborations among businesses and academia relying on information from different statistics and interviews. The latter source also allows exploring motivations for, and major features of, business-academia co-operation. The paper argues that mapping B-A collaborations by using multiple methods and multiple sources of information can significantly improve the reliability and richness of our understanding, and can offer insights on dynamics and qualitative features of these co-operation processes. Interviews conducted in Hungary – in line with other research findings – have also confirmed that (i) motivations, incentives for, and norms of, conducting R&D and innovation activities diametrically differ in business and academia; and (ii) different types of firms have different needs. Thus, more refined policy measures are to be devised to promote B-A collaboration more efficiently, better tuned to the needs of the actors, based on a relevant taxonomy of their co-operations. Evaluation criteria for academics should also be revised to remove some major obstacles, currently blocking more effective B-A co-operation. Several findings presented in this paper can be generalised beyond the cases considered, but the research design to analyse B-A collaborations and the concomitant policy recommendations always need to be tailored to the innovation systems in question.

Suggested Citation

  • Attila Havas, 2014. "Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations Implications for measurement and policy," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1419, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:has:discpr:1419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.core.hu/file/download/mtdp/MTDP1419.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    3. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Masao Nakamura & Pierre Mohnen & Cathy Hoareau, 2003. "What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2-3), pages 133-145.
    5. Havas, Attila & Nyiri, Lajos, 2007. "National system of innovation in Hungary," MPRA Paper 67161, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Freeman, Chris, 2002. "Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems--complementarity and economic growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-211, February.
    7. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    8. Charles Edquist, 2011. "Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1725-1753, December.
    9. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    10. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    11. Cowan, Robin, 2005. "Universities and the Knowledge Economy," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Benoît Godin, 2008. "The Moral Economy of Technology Indicators," Chapters, in: Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & David Jacobson (ed.), Innovation in Low-Tech Firms and Industries, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Freeman, Chris, 1994. "The Economics of Technical Change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 18(5), pages 463-514, October.
    14. Peneder, Michael, 2010. "Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 323-334, April.
    15. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    16. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    17. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Bell, Martin & Martin, Ben R., 2011. "Christopher Freeman: social science entrepreneur," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 897-916, September.
    19. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
    20. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
    21. Edquist, Charles, 2011. "Innovation Policy Design: Identification of Systemic Problems," Papers in Innovation Studies 2011/6, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    22. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Dominique Foray (ed.), 2009. "The New Economics of Technology Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13445.
    24. Richard R. Nelson, 1995. "Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 48-90, March.
    25. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Richard Jensen & Jerry Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2010. "University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting," NBER Working Papers 15732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    28. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    29. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 2007. "Public research institutions and economic catch-up," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1512-1528, December.
    30. Pablo D'Este & Frederick Guy & Simona Iammarino, 2013. "Shaping the formation of university--industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 537-558, July.
    31. Mowery,David C. & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 1999. "Sources of Industrial Leadership," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521645201, September.
    32. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    33. Giovanni Dosi & Christopher Freeman & Richard Nelson & Gerarld Silverberg & Luc Soete (ed.), 1988. "Technical Change and Economic Theory," LEM Book Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, number dosietal-1988, November.
    34. D. Schartinger & C. Rammer & J. Fröhlich, 2006. "Knowledge Interactions between Universities and Industry in Austria: Sectoral Patterns and Determinants," Springer Books, in: Innovation, Networks, and Knowledge Spillovers, chapter 7, pages 135-166, Springer.
    35. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, April.
    36. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    37. Feller, Irwin & Ailes, Catherine P. & Roessner, J. David, 2002. "Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 457-474, March.
    38. Ajay Agrawal & Iain M. Cockburn, 2002. "University Research, Industrial R&D, and the Anchor Tenant Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 9212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    39. Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & David Jacobson (ed.), 2008. "Innovation in Low-Tech Firms and Industries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13088.
    40. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    41. Fagerberg, Jan & Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. (ed.), 2006. "The Oxford Handbook of Innovation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199286805.
    42. Mosoniné Fried, Judit & Szunyogh, Zsuzsanna, 2008. "Kutatás és fejlesztés a közszférában [Research and development in the public sphere]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 60-79.
    43. Inzelt, Annamaria, 2004. "The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 975-995, September.
    44. Freeman, Chris, 1995. "The 'National System of Innovation' in Historical Perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 5-24, February.
    45. Smith, Keith, 2002. "What is the 'Knowledge Economy'? Knowledge Intensity and Distributed Knowledge Bases," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 2002-06, United Nations University - INTECH.
    46. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    47. Niosi, Jorge, 2002. "National systems of innovations are "x-efficient" (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 291-302, February.
    48. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    49. Freeman, C., 1991. "Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 499-514, October.
    50. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    51. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    52. Giada Di Stefano & Alfonso Gambardella & Gianmario Verona, 2012. "Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions," Post-Print hal-00696607, HAL.
    53. G. N. von Tunzelmann, 1995. "Technology and Industrial Progress," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 437.
    54. Mora-Valentin, Eva M. & Montoro-Sanchez, Angeles & Guerras-Martin, Luis A., 2004. "Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 17-40, January.
    55. Ritzen, Jo & Soete, Luc, 2011. "Research, higher education and innovation: redesigning multi-level governance within Europe in a period of crisis," MERIT Working Papers 2011-056, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    56. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    57. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    58. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juliana Amarante & João Marcelo Crubellate, 2020. "Institutional Pressures, Institutional Work and the Development of Universities’ Entrepreneurial Turn," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 24(2), pages 119-133.
    2. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Havas, Attila, 2016. "Recent economic theorising on innovation: Lessons for analysing social innovation," MPRA Paper 77385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Mit mér(j)ünk?. Az innováció értelmezései - szakpolitikai következmények [The theory and measurement of innovation and its mutual effect on policy]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 1022-1059.
    3. Attila Havas, 2016. "Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 10(2 (eng)), pages 58-80.
    4. Attila Havas, 2015. "Various approaches to measuring business innovation: their relevance for capturing social innovation," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1554, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Attila Havas, 2015. "The persistent high-tech myth in the EC policy circles - Implications for the EU10 countries," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1517, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    6. Attila Havas, 2014. "Trapped by the high-tech myth: the need and chances for a new policy rationale," Chapters, in: Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & Isabel Schwinge (ed.), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Low-Tech Industries, chapter 9, pages 193-217, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Havas, Attila, 2011. "Governing policy processes and foresight," MPRA Paper 38119, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Havas, Attila & Weber, K. Matthias, 2017. "The 'fit' between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy governance sub-system: A framework to explore potential impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 327-337.
    9. Attila Havas & K. Matthias Weber, 2016. "The ‘fit’ between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy governance sub-system," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1601, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    12. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    13. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Diego R. Moraes Silva & André T. Furtado & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2018. "University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: a sectoral approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 285-315, April.
    15. Chen, Shih-Hsin & Lin, Wei-Ting, 2017. "The dynamic role of universities in developing an emerging sector: a case study of the biotechnology sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 283-297.
    16. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    17. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    18. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    19. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    20. Carlsson , Bo, 2016. "Industrial Dynamics: A Review of the Literature 1990-2009," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/3, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Types of knowledge; Business-academia collaboration; Multiple methods to map business-academia collaborations; STI policy implications;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:has:discpr:1419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nora Horvath (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehashu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.