Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversityindustry.docx
《Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversityindustry.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversityindustry.docx（45页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversityindustry
ResearchPolicy39（2010）858–868
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
ResearchPolicy
journalhomepage:
Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversity–industrycollaboration
JohanBruneela,b,PabloD’Esteb,AmmonSaltera,∗
aImperialCollegeBusinessSchool,ImperialCollegeLondon,SouthKensingtonCampus,London,UnitedKingdom,SW72AZ
bInstituteofInnovationandKnowledgeManagement（INGENIO）,SpanishCouncilforScientificResearch（CSIC）-PolytechnicUniv.ofValencia（UPV）,CiudadPolitécnicadelaInnovación,Valencia46022,Spain
articleinfo
abstract
Articlehistory:
Received11March2009
Receivedinrevisedform3November2009
Accepted26March2010
Availableonline11May2010
Keywords:
Universities
University–industrycollaboration
Barrierstocollaboration
Inter-organizationaltrust
Althoughtheliteratureonuniversity–industrylinkshasbeguntouncoverthereasonsfor,andtypesof,collaborationbetweenuniversitiesandbusinesses,itoffersrelativelylittleexplanationofwaystoreducethebarriersinthesecollaborations.Thispaperseekstounpackthenatureoftheobstaclestocollaborationsbetweenuniversitiesandindustry,exploringinfluenceofdifferentmechanismsinlow-eringbarriersrelatedtotheorientationofuniversitiesandtothetransactionsinvolvedinworkingwithuniversitypartners.Drawingonalarge-scalesurveyandpublicrecords,thispaperexplorestheeffectsofcollaborationexperience,breadthofinteraction,andinter-organizationaltrustonloweringdifferenttypesofbarriers.Theanalysisshowsthatpriorexperienceofcollaborativeresearchlowersorientation-relatedbarriersandthatgreaterlevelsoftrustreducebothtypesofbarriersstudied.Italsoindicatesthatbreadthofinteractiondiminishestheorientation-related,butincreasestransaction-relatedbarriers.Thepaperexplorestheimplicationsofthesefindingsforpoliciesaimedatfacilitatinguniversity–industrycollaboration.
©2010ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
1.Introduction
Collaborationbetweenindustryanduniversitiesfacessignifi-cantchallenges.Whileuniversitiesareprimarilydriventocreatenewknowledgeandtoeducate,privatefirmsarefocusedoncap-turingvaluableknowledgethatcanbeleveragedforcompetitiveadvantage（DasguptaandDavid,1994）.Inaddition,universitiesarebecomingincreasinglyproactivemanagersoftheircollabora-tionswithindustry,seekingtocreatevaluableIntellectualProperty（IP）tofostertechnologytransfer.Accordingly,moreandmoreinteractionsbetweenuniversityandindustryarebecomingsub-jecttomeasurementandmanagement,leadingtomoreformal,contractualexchangesbasedoncodifiedrulesandregulations.Althoughboththeseaspectshavebeenacknowledgedintheliter-atureonuniversity–industry（U–I）linkages,relativelyfewstudieshaveinvestigatedthenatureofthebarriersandthefactorsthatmightmitigatethem（seealsoHalletal.,2001）.GiventhecentralimportancegivenbypolicytobuildingandsupportingU–Ilinks,
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:
j.bruneel@imperial.ac.uk,johan.bruneel@ugent.be（J.Bruneel）,a.salter@imperial.ac.uk（A.Salter）.
thelackofresearchontheobstaclestocollaborationisaserioushindrancetothedesignofeffectivepolicy.
Inordertoadvanceknowledgeinthisarea,thispaperexam-inestwotypesofbarriers:
（i）thoserelatedtodifferencesintheorientationsofindustryanduniversities,whatwedescribeas‘orientation-relatedbarriers’;and（ii）barriersrelatedtocon-flictsoverIP,anddealingwithuniversityadministration,whatwedescribeas‘transaction-relatedbarriers’.Thispaperexploresthemechanismsthatcanlowerthedegreetowhichfirmsencounterthesetypesofbarriersthroughanexaminationofthreeimportantelementsthatinfluencethefirm’sperceptionofthesetwosetsofobstaclestocollaboration.First,weexploretheimpactofthefirm’spriorexperienceofworkingonresearchprojectswithuniversitiesontheassumptionthatexperiencecaneasebothtypesofbarrierstocollaboration.Second,weexaminewhetherthenatureoftheinteractionbetweenthefirmanditsuniversitypartnerplaysaroleintheperceptionofbarriers.Inthiscase,weexpectthatfirmsthatarticulatetheircollaborationsthroughmultiplechannelswillper-ceivebarriersaslessconstraining.Wealsoinvestigatewhetherthenatureoftheinteraction–herewecontrasteducation-basedwithcontract-basedformsofinteraction–thatfirmsengageinwithuni-versitypartnerspositively（ornegatively）influencestheperceptionofdifferenttypesofbarriers.Finally,weassesshowtheleveloftrustinitsuniversitypartnersshapesthefirm’sperceptionofthebarrierstoworkingwithuniversities（Nooteboom,2002;McEvilyet
0048-7333/$–seefrontmatter©2010ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
al.,2003）.Ourapproachprovidesawindowonsomeofthemecha-nismsthatmaylimitthedepthandqualityofinteractionsbetweenuniversitiesandbusinesses.
Theanalysisisbasedonthestatisticalanalysisofalargesur-veyofUKfirmsthathavecollaboratedonpubliclyfundedresearchprojects,combinedwithdatafromrecordsofpriorinvolvementinresearchcollaborationwithuniversities.Theanalysisshowsthatpriorexperienceofcollaborativeresearchlowersorientation-relatedbarriersandthatgreaterlevelsoftrustreducebothtypesofbarriersstudied.Wealsofindthatbreadthofinteractiondiminishestheorientation-related,butincreasestransaction-relatedbarriers.Weexploretheimplicationsofthesefindingsforresearchandpol-icy.
2.BarriersassociatedwithU–Icollaboration
2.1.Incentivesandconflictsbetweenpublicandprivateknowledge
AtthecoreoftheobstaclestoU–Icollaborationsarethediffer-entinstitutionalnormsgoverningpublicandprivateknowledge（DasguptaandDavid,1994）.TheuniversitysystemisrootedinMertoniannormsofscience,suchascommunalism,universalism,disinterestednessandorganizedscepticism（Merton,1973）.Thecreationofreliableandpublicknowledgehasbeencentraltothegrowthoftheseorganizations,leadingtosupportfromgovernmentforresearchtoexpandthepoolofeconomicallyusefulknowledge（Geunaetal.,2003）.Theseinstitutionalnormsarefundamentaltothewaythatmanyacademicsperceiveandperformtheirwork.Indeed,scientistsarewillingtoacceptlowerwagesinordertoworkwithintheinstitutionsofscience,indicatingthatmanyscientistsaremotivatedbyintrinsicgoalsaswellasthesocialobjectivesoftheuniversities（Stern,2004;CohenandSauermann,2007）.Theinstitutionsofscienceincludestrongcompetitivemechanismsandpowerfulincentiveregimes.Thepriorityofestablishingreputationthroughpublicationiscriticaltoacademicsuccessand/orcareersustainability.Academicsoftenhavetoengagein‘statuscompeti-tions’withtheirpeers,basedonpublicationrecords,institutionalaffiliationsandprizes（Becher,1989）.Manyofthesecompetitionstaketheformofwinner-takes-all,inwhichpublishingfirstorwinningthelargestresearchgrantsprecludesothersfromthesesameachievementsorresources.Giventhisenvironment,muchofthesciencesystemisdrivenbyinternaldynamicsthataresepa-ratefrommarkettransactions（Polanyi,1962;DasguptaandDavid,
1994;Stephan,1996）.Peeresteemcannotbeboughtandmustbecreatedbywinningfavourandreputationamongcolleagues.
Althoughitmightbetemptingtoseethesciencesystemasoper-atingoutsidetheconfinesofmarkettransactions,itisalsotruethateconomicandsocialforcesoutsidethesciencesystemitselfplayapowerfulroleinshapingscientistsandscience（Freeman,1999）.Muchoftheresearchsupportedbygovernmentisapplied,orprac-ticallyoriented,andfocusedonsolvinggeneralsocial,technicaloreconomicproblemsusingthecapabilitiesofscience（Pavitt,2001）.Scientistsoftenholdconflictingandevolvingviewsonthebene-fitsofworkingwithindustry（Welshetal.,2008）.Moreover,manyfieldsofresearch,suchasengineering,bytheirnature,involveconsiderableinteractionwithindustrialpractice（RosenbergandNelson,1994）.Inaddition,theroleoftheuniversityasanedu-catorofprofessionals–doctors,engineers,accountants,lawyers,etc.–meansthatalargeproportionoftheirstaffarefocusedonfieldsofresearchthatengagewithpracticalproblems.Fortheresearchersworkinginsuchareas,practicalproblemsprovideapowerfulstimulustothedevelopmentofnewideas（Rosenberg,
2002）.Althoughwithinthesepractical-orientedareasofresearchthenormsofsciencestilloperate,theydososomewhatdifferently
fromtheMertonianidealofscience.Researchersintheseareasaremorelikelytobeengagedonrealworldproblemsandinteractingwithindustry,andtheirstatusislikelytobeco-determinedbytheirreputationamongtheirpeersandtheirstandinginindustry.Thisisespeciallytrueinthecaseofengineering（Vincenti,1990）.
Incontrasttotherelativelyopennatureofthesciencesystem,theprocessofknowledgecreationintheprivatesectorisdomi-natedbyattemptstoappropriatetheeconomicvalueofwhatfirmsknowinordertogaincompetitiveadvantage（Teece,1986）.This
‘private’knowledgeislargelyclosed,remaininghiddenwithinthefirmordisclosedinalimitedwaythroughpatentsfiledprimarilyforthepurposesofobtainingtemporarymonopolies
升级会员 