Transferring science-based technologies to industry: Does nanotechnology make a difference?
暂无分享,去创建一个
Christopher Palmberg | Tuomo Nikulainen | Mika Pajarinen | C. Palmberg | T. Nikulainen | Mika Pajarinen
[1] Mika Wirgrén. Trade Potential, Intra-industry Trade and Factor Content Revealed Comperative Advantage in the Baltic Sea Region , 2006 .
[2] F. Rothaermel,et al. Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation , 2008 .
[3] Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al. Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .
[4] Tuomo Nikulainen,et al. Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the Finnish economy – an explorative study , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..
[5] Eva María Mora Valentín. University—Industry Cooperation: A Framework of Benefits and Obstacles , 2000 .
[6] Martin Meyer,et al. Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology , 2006, Scientometrics.
[7] Kenneth I. Carlaw,et al. Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long Term Economic Growth , 2006 .
[8] C. Palmberg. The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers , 2008 .
[9] Joachim Schummer,et al. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.
[10] Terttu Luukkonen,et al. Living up to the Expectations Set by ICT? The Case of Biotechnology Commercialisation in Finland , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..
[11] Martin Meyer,et al. Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.
[12] Y. Lee. The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment , 2000 .
[13] Christopher Palmberg,et al. Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? An overview with focus on Finland , 2006 .
[14] Daniel Ratner,et al. Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea , 2002 .
[15] M. Meyer. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .
[16] Martin Meyer. Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies, The Case of Nanotechnology , 2000 .
[17] E. Harison,et al. Innovative software business strategies: Evidence from finnish firms , 2006 .
[18] Stuart Macdonald,et al. The survival of the gatekeeper , 1994 .
[19] Nabil Amara,et al. Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering , 2007 .
[20] Maj Munch Andersen,et al. PATH CREATION IN THE MAKING - THE CASE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY , 2005 .
[21] Dana Nicolau. Innovation and knowledge transfer in emerging fields: the case of Nanotechnology in Australia , 2005 .
[22] J. Storrs Hall,et al. Nanofuture: What's Next For Nanotechnology , 2005 .
[23] Michael E. Gorman,et al. Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Technology Transfer , 2002 .
[24] Barry Bozeman,et al. Domestic Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: An Empirical Assessment of Roles of University and Governmental R&D Laboratories , 1988 .
[25] Marie C. Thursby,et al. The nanotech vs . the biotech revolution : sources of productivity in incumbent firm research , 2007 .
[26] Jyoti S. A. Bhat,et al. Concerns of new technology based industries: The case of nanotechnology. , 2005 .
[27] Martin Meyer,et al. Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology , 2006 .
[28] V. Bush. The Endless Frontier, Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research , 1945 .
[29] Thomas Heinze,et al. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Europe : Analysis of Publications and Patent Applications including Comparisons with the United States , 2004 .
[30] Barry Bozeman,et al. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .
[31] Y. Lee,et al. 'TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER' AND THE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY : A SEARCH FOR THE BOUNDARIES OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION , 1996 .
[32] David Blumenthal,et al. Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty , 2001 .
[33] Richard G. Hamermesh,et al. U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer , 2011 .
[34] Rudi Bekkers,et al. The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer : empirical evidence from biomedical engineering , 2006 .
[35] Ismael Rafols,et al. How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors , 2007, Scientometrics.
[36] Zan Huang,et al. International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .
[37] R. Hermans,et al. Sustainable Biotechnology Development - New Insights into Finland , 2006 .
[38] C. Palmberg. The sources and success of innovations —Determinants of commercialisation and break-even times , 2006 .
[39] Patrick Llerena,et al. Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .
[40] Martin Meyer,et al. What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency , 2007, Scientometrics.
[41] P. Boardman,et al. University researchers working with private companies , 2009 .
[42] Michael R. Darby,et al. Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology , 2003 .
[43] Christine M. Shea. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study , 2005 .
[44] Richard A. L. Jones,et al. The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology , 2003 .
[45] M. Tushman,et al. External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers. , 1980 .
[46] N. Islam,et al. Nanotechnology systems of innovation - An analysis of industry and academia research activities , 2007 .
[47] Doris Schartinger,et al. Interactive Relations Between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria , 2001 .
[48] Laura Valkonen. Perhevapaiden vaikutukset naisten ura- ja palkkakehitykseen - kirjallisuuskatsaus , 2006 .
[49] Ismael Rafols,et al. Knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in bionanotechnology , 2006 .
[50] Stuart J. H. Graham,et al. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? , 2008 .
[51] Pablo D'Este,et al. University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .
[52] Grid Thoma,et al. Cross Pollination in Science and Technology: The Emergence of the Nanobio Subfield , 2009 .
[53] Michael R. Darby,et al. Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce , 1997, Journal of Labor Economics.
[54] Richard N. Cardozo,et al. Mapping the university technology transfer process , 1997 .
[55] Thomas J. Allen,et al. Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological informat , 1977 .
[56] A. Leiponen. Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications , 2006 .
[57] Christopher Palmberg,et al. Economic and Industrial Policy Transformations in Finland , 2007 .
[58] Andrea Piccaluga,et al. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university‐industry relationships , 1994 .
[59] Rebecca Henderson,et al. Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..
[60] Grid Thoma,et al. Scientific and technological regimes in nanotechnology. Combinatorial inventors and performance , 2005 .