Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations

D’Este, Pablo; Perkmann, Markus

doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z

Cited by 790 publications

(592 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

543

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the literature on KT in non-SSH fields, future work on SSH KT should investigate several variables not considered explicitly in this study, for example, research funding sources (Gulbrandsen and Smeby, 2005;Landry et al, 2007Landry et al, , 2010, motivations for collaboration (D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;Lam, 2011) and the perceived barriers to academic collaboration with socio-economic agents (Tartari et al, 2012). Tables Table 1 Definitions of KT activities.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…Most empirical work on KT focuses on natural sciences and engineering disciplines (e.g. Bishop et al, 2011;D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;Haeussler and Colyvas, 2011;Landry et al, 2010, among others). This paper aims to shed light on the particularities of KT in the SSH and formal interactions that are characterized largely as relational (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2014

Self Cite

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Characteristics Of Research Group Leadermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, the link between research and innovation has been explored through studies of research collaboration [Sonnenwald, 2007;Bozeman, Boardman, 2014], university-industry interactions [Mansfield, 1998;Scott et al, 2001;Perkmann, Walsh, 2007;Perkmann et al, 2013], modes of knowledge production [Gibbons et al, 1994], the triple helix [Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff, 2000], the entrepreneurial university [Clark, 1998], the third mission of universities [Laredo, 2007;Pinheiro et al, 2015] and the position of universities in innovation systems [Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009;Jacobsson, Perez Vico, 2010]. Many such studies describe the productive complementarity [Gulbrandsen, Smeby, 2005;D'Este, Perkmann, 2011;Wigren-Kristoferson et al, 2011;Fogelberg, Lundqvist, 2012], and underline the embeddedness of innovation in research [Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff, 2000;Pinheiro et al, 2015]. However, other studies raise concerns that short-term commercialisation comes at the expense of long-term research and undermines the efficiency of the division of labour between public and private research [Larsen, 2011], and even deteriorates academic virtues, such as scientific rigor, objectivity and independence [Slaughter et al, 2002].…”

Section: Master Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Triangle Configurations at Three Swedish Universities

Vico

Serger²,

Wise³

et al. 2017

Foresight and STI Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he concept of a knowledge triangle, i.e., the principle of strengthening the linkages between research, education and innovation, has emerged as a result of policymakers' expectations that universities assume a broader societal responsibility. Yet, little is known about how these tasks and their interactions are orchestrated at universities. We explore concept of how the knowledge triangle is manifested in the organisation and strategy of three different Swedish universities, and how these manifestations are shaped by the policy landscape. The article highlights the fact that although the knowledge triangle remains a priority, explicit national policies are lacking, with the responsibility of integration falling upon universities themselves. We observe great diversity in how Кeywords: knowledge triangle; university management; third mission; societal collaboration; research utilisation. the principles of the knowledge triangle are orchestrated at the universities, e.g., through individuals' interpretations and attitudes, and through management strategies and incentive schemes. However, the three tasks have largely been handled separately, with weak coordination and generally limited ambition demonstrated by university management teams to forge new combinations of remits. At the individual and group levels, we observe weak task articulation, although some role models serve as inspiration. Tensions emerge as the responsibilities of operationalising the knowledge triangle falls on individuals who sometimes lack the appropriate mandate and resources. These findings raise questions for further research and implications for policy and university management.

show abstract

“…Faculty members benefit from the influx of corporate expertise 5 . Researchers with industrial experience are often more knowledgeable about high-throughput technology and commercial applications than their academic counterparts.…”

Section: Building Buddiesmentioning

confidence: 99%