Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals?

This paper analyzes Canadian Government attempts to encourage and measure commercialization of university knowledge for socio-economic improvement. Universities are regarded as major, insufficiently exploited, repositories of knowledge. Here, paths by which knowledge can be transferred across institutional boundaries, and various input and output/outcome measures are identified. Available Canadian data are evaluated and a detailed quantitative and qualitative study of one institution is presented. Three key issues emerge: (1) current proxies focus on licensing and spin-off, and do not measure several important paths of knowledge flow; (2) most readily available proxies are derived from aggregate data and are inadequate to fully reflect the idiosyncratic and path-dependent nature of innovation; (3) if the goals and incentives of the actors in the ‘triple helix’ are skewed or misinterpreted by indicators, universities and firms may engage in counterproductive activities. We propose additional indicators that might help to prevent one measurable dimension from becoming the policy driver to the detriment of the overall goals.

[1]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .

[2]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[3]  Sven Widmalm,et al.  The science-industry nexus : history, policy, implications : Nobel Symposium 123 , 2004 .

[4]  Gabriel Szulanski.  Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 1996 .

[5]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations , 2000, Scientometrics.

[6]  Lyle V. Jones,et al.  SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES , 1982 .

[7]  L. Nesta.  LABOUR MOBILITY FROM ACADEMIA TO BUSINESS. NEW EVIDENCE FROM A LARGE DATASET OF EPO INVENTORS , 2005 .

[8]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  Management of knowledge in project environments , 2003 .

[9]  R. Rothwell.  Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s , 1992 .

[10]  R. L. Jensen,et al.  Reaping the Fruits of Science: Comparing Exploitations of a Scientific Breakthrough in European Innovation Systems , 2002 .

[11]  Sven Widmalm,et al.  The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications , 2004 .

[12]  George S. . Messersmith.  Department of Commerce. Washington. , 1938 .

[13]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[14]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[15]  Roberto Fontana,et al.  Firm Size and Openness: The Driving Forces of University-Industry Collaboration , 2003 .

[16]  B. Frey,et al.  Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms , 2000 .

[17]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[18]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[19]  C. Freeman,et al.  The Economics of Industrial Innovation - 3rd Edition , 1997 .

[20]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research , 2004 .

[21]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems , 2002, Scientometrics.

[23]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[24]  J. S. Burgess,et al.  Investing In Innovation , 1990 .

[25]  A. Agrawal.  University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions , 2001 .

[26]  A. Salter,et al.  Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? , 2004 .

[27]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  A cognitive model of innovation , 1998 .

[28]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[29]  E. Mansfield.  Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1 , 1998 .

[30]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research Output of Universities , 1998 .

[31]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[32]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[33]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Harvard Business School; SSRN; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Harvard University - Accounting & Control Unit , 1976 .

[34]  Jonathan Sapsed,et al.  Chapter 4 – Influences of knowledge sharing and hoarding in project-based firms , 2005 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[36]  Richard Florida,et al.  The Role of the University: Leveraging Talent, not Technology. , 1999 .

[37]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  SPRU - Science and Technology Policy SEWP 108 Collaboration between a research university and firms and other institutions , 2004 .

[38]  W. Baumol.  Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[39]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[40]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness , 2003 .