LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Meissner, C.
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: HB
This thesis investigates the factors influencing an academics involvement with industry and how these collaborations a¤ect research outputs in terms of publications and patents. It employs a longitudinal dataset that comprises more than 4000 engineering academics over 20 years and a smaller subsample of 479 academics over 12 years and uses robust econometric approaches to address issues of unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity. Collaboration with industry is measured through two funding modes: (1) funding received from industry directly and (2) funding from the research council that involves business partners. The thesis is unique in its ability to measure two distinct types of funding over a long time period and compare these to commercialisation efforts of academics. It analyses the relationship between both activities and relates it to academics publication numbers. Considering all three activities jointly allows some new insights into their complementarities as well as identifying possible substitution effects.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 11 GMM regression. Impact of publications and patents on collaboration and funding propensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
    • 12 3SLS regression. Impact of publications and patents on collaboration and funding propensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
    • 18 ZINB regressions with pre-sample observations and robust standard errors (Opportunity In‡ation Model). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
    • 19 ZINB regressions with pre-sample observations and robust standard errors (Support In‡ation Model). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
    • 20 Characteristics of the certain zero group (Opportunity In‡ation Model). . . 109
    • [1] Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M. Stein, J. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics 39 (3), 617- 635.
    • [2] Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 44-60.
    • [4] Arellano, M., Bover, O. (1995). Another Look at the Instrumental-Variable Estimation of Error-Component Models. Journal of Econometrics 68, 29-52.
    • [5] Arora, A., David, P., Gambardella, A. (1998). Reputation and Competence in Publicly Funded Science: Estimating the E¤ects on Research Group Productivity. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 49-50, 163-198.
    • [6] Arundel A., A. Geuna (2004). Proximity and the Use of Public Science by Innovative European Firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13, 559-580.
    • [15] Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E., Anderson, M., Causino, N.„Louis, K.S. (1996a). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine 335, 1734-1739.
    • [16] Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E.„ Seashore-Louis, K. (1996b). Relationship between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences - an industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334, 368-373.
    • [17] Blundell, R., Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87, 11-143.
    • [18] Blundell, R., Gri¢ th, R., van Reenen, J. (1995). Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Economic Journal 105 (429), 333-344.
    • [19] Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • [21] Breschi S., Lissoni F., Montobbio F. (2005). From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academic inventors? Revue d’Economie Industrielle 120 (1), 75-102.
    • [35] DES (1991). Higher Education. A New Framework. London: HMSO.
    • [50] Geuna, A., Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its e¤ects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35 (6), 790-807.
    • [51] Gibbons, M., Johnston, R. (1975). The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy 3, 220-242
    • [52] Godin, B. (1996). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy 25, 587-606.
    • [54] Goldfarb, B., Marschke, G., Smith, A. (2009). Scholarship and inventive activity in the university: complements or substitutes? Economics of Innovation and New Technology 18 (8), 743-756.
    • [66] Lach, S., Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics 39 (2), 403-433.
    • [67] Lambert (2003). Lambert review of business-university collaboration. London: HM Treasury.
    • [69] Lee, Y.S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer 25 (2), 111-133.
    • [70] Levin, S.G., Stephan, P.E. (1991). Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists. American Economic Review 81 (1), 114-132.
    • [71] Leydesdor¤, L., Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole e¤ect. Scientometrics 83 (2), 355-362.
    • [72] Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 (4), 641-655.
    • [73] Louis, K.S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M.E., Stoto, M.A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 110-131.
    • [74] Louis, K.S., Jones, L.M., Anderson, M.S., Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and nonclinical faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (3), 233-45.
    • [82] Narin, F., Pinski, G., Gee, H. (1976). Structure of the Biomedical Literature, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27 (1), 25-45.
    • [83] Nelson, R.R. (1986). Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. American Economic Review Proc. 76, 186-189.
    • [84] Nelson, R.R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (1-2), 13-19.
    • [100] Stephan, P.E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A.J., Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2), 71-99.
    • [102] Stuart, T. E., Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1), 97-144.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article