University researchers working with private companies

Boardman, P. Craig; Ponomariov, Branco

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008

Cited by 216 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…What we imply as incorrect logic is the assertion that some universities are research-oriented while others are applied-oriented, as if a university (its researchers) cannot undertake both simultaneously. Furthermore, Boardman and Ponomariov (2009) found that the "traditional scientific values" -in terms of research not necessarily conducted for obtaining an economic return-are not relevant and have no negative effect on industry collaboration. Thus, the debate on research-oriented versus entrepreneurial university is not so relevant, at least if we think of this at an individual rather than an institutional level.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

Dabić

González‐Loureiro

Daim

2015

Technology in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to present evidence that there are different types of supportive faculty members. We conducted a case study on a sample of Croatian and Spanish universities by using an already tested ENTRE-U scale for measuring the faculty members' attitudes. These two scenarios are quite different in terms of their innovation systems, economic context and university system. We tested and found no evidence of any statistically significant difference due to the country. These two facts suggest the possible existence of an isomorphic trajectory when implementing entrepreneurial universities regardless the context. University managers should be aware of the existence of three different types of supportive individuals. Each of these groups requires a certain program of human resource development. This shifts the debate to how entrepreneurial universities should manage the tensions arising from the need of some degree of specialization in any of the three roles of the faculty members, namely teaching, researching and transfer of the knowledge stemming from research results.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

Dabić

González‐Loureiro

Daim

2015

Technology in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the survey collects information about some interactions with industry and the local business environment and community, several important types are not included, especially those involving students and personal interactions (graduate placements in industry, recruitment of university staff members to industry positions, academics' participation in industry conferences and workshops, placements of entrepreneurs and industry personnel in universities, visiting scholarships, and others; overviews of the many channels of knowledge exchange are presented in Dutrénit et al, 2010;Hughes et al, 2011;Boardman and Ponomariov, 2009;Jensen, R. et al, 2010;Bekkers and Bodas Freitas, 2008). Furthermore, interactions around production and service activities, such as prototyping, clinical testing and design services, would fall within the very generic area of "Facilities and equipment related services" where they would be grouped with standardized, non-knowledge producing services like room and equipment rental activities.…”

Section: Ip Incomementioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Rossi

Rosli

2014

Studies in Higher Education

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The issue of what indicators are most appropriate in order to measure the performance of universities in knowledge transfer (KT) activities remains relatively under-investigated. The main aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the limitations to the current measurements of university-industry KT performance, and propose some directions for improvement. We argue that university-industry KT can unfold in many ways and impact many stakeholders, and that, especially in highly differentiated university systems, choosing indicators focused on a narrow range of activities and impacts might limit the ability of universities to accurately represent their KT performance. Therefore, KT indicators should include a variety of activities and reflect a variety of impacts, so as to allow comparability between different institutions and avoid the creation of undesirable behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, we discuss the case of the United Kingdom's Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey.

show abstract

“…Several studies analyse the influence of researchers' characteristics on their decisions to participate in different KT activities (Boardman and Ponomariov, 2009;D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;Landry et al, 2010, among others). In a collective such as a research group, certain individuals have a major influence on its practices.…”

Section: Individual Characteristics Of Research Group Leadermentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is to achieve a better understanding of the processes underlying knowledge transfer (KT) in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). The paper addresses: first, the extent of SSH research groups' engagement in KT and the formal KT activities used to interact with non-academic communities; and second, how the characteristics of research groups may influence engagement in various types of KT. The empirical analysis is at research group level using data derived from a questionnaire of SSH research groups conducted by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). We find that KT activities are based on relational rather than commercial activities. The most frequent relational activities in which SSH research groups engage are consultancy and contract research, with personnel mobility a marginal activity. We find also that the characteristics of research groups (e.g. size and multidisciplinarity) and individuals (e.g. status and research impact) are associated with involvement in KT activities and that a deliberate focus on the societal impacts and relevance of the research conducted is strongly related to active engagement of research groups in all the modes of KT considered in this study. From a managerial perspective, our findings suggest that measures promoting a focus on the societal impact of research could enhance research groups' engagement in KT activities.

show abstract

University researchers working with private companies

Cited by 216 publications

References 42 publications

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About