Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model

Abstract Pasteur’s Quadrant model, published by Stokes in 1997, presents a two-dimensional abstract conceptual framework that proved immensely helpful to study and discuss institutional and policy arrangements in science. However, during the last 10 years the PQ model was also applied in a series of large-scale, survey-based studies worldwide to classify individual modern-day researchers according to their research orientation and performance. This paper argues that such applications are inadequate to capture key characteristics of individual researchers, especially those within the heterogeneous ‘Pasteur type’ group who engage in ‘use-inspired’ basic scientific research. Addressing this shortcoming, Pasteur’s Cube (PC) model introduces a new heuristic tool. Departing from a three-dimensional conceptual framework of research-related activities, the model enables a range of typologies to describe and study the large variety of academics at today’s research-intensive universities. The PC model’s analytical robustness was tested empirically in two interrelated ‘proof of concept’ studies: an exploratory survey among 150 European universities and a follow-up case study of Leiden University in the Netherlands. Both studies, collecting data for the years 2010–2015, applied a metrics-based taxonomy to classify individual academic researchers according to four performance categories: scientific publication output, research collaboration with the business sector, patents filings, and being engaging in entrepreneurial activities. The collective results of both studies provide more clarity on relevant subgroups of use-inspired researchers. The PC model can be used to guide empirical, metrics-based investigations of research activities and productivities, applies this approach to two case studies, and demonstrates the utility of the method while also reinforcing and enriching the growing body of literature showing that cross-sectoral and cross-functional research activities are more scientifically productive than research carried out in isolation of the context of use. Introducing the ‘Crossover Collaborator’ subtype helps to explain why Pasteur type researchers tend to outperform other types of researchers in terms of publication output and citation impact.

[1]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

[2]  Tomas Karlsson,et al.  Start-ups among university employees: the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital , 2012 .

[3]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[4]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[5]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers , 2014 .

[6]  A. Link,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2007 .

[7]  Christopher S. Hayter Constraining entrepreneurial development: : A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs , 2016 .

[8]  Magnus Klofsten,et al.  Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – The Case of Sweden and Ireland , 2000 .

[9]  H. Etzkowitz The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[10]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  Discarding the ‘basic science-applied science’ dichotomy: A knowledge utilization triangle classification system of research journals , 2010 .

[11]  Andrea Vezzulli,et al.  If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world , 2007 .

[12]  S. Desai,et al.  Scientist entrepreneurship across scientific fields , 2014 .

[13]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance , 2017 .

[14]  T. Shinn,et al.  Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university–enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms , 2006 .

[15]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities , 2003 .

[16]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences , 2001 .

[17]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship , 2011 .

[18]  A. Salter,et al.  Accounting for Universities’ Impact: Using Augmented Data to Measure Academic Engagement and Commercialization by Academic Scientists , 2015 .

[19]  M. Perkmann,et al.  Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations , 2009 .

[20]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics , 2010 .

[21]  Lowell W. Busenitz,et al.  Entrepreneurship Research (1985–2009) and the Emergence of Opportunities , 2014 .

[22]  Marian Thunnissen,et al.  Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies , 2013 .

[23]  Yasunori Baba,et al.  How does the entrepreneurial orientation of scientists affect their scientific performance? Evidence from the quadrant model , 2015, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[24]  S. Rosen The Economics of Superstars , 1981 .

[25]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Researchers’ Industry Experience and Productivity in University–Industry Research Centers: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” Explanation , 2006 .

[26]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[27]  Daniel L. Fay,et al.  Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art , 2012, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[28]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital , 2005 .

[29]  S. Woolf The meaning of translational research and why it matters. , 2008, JAMA.

[30]  D. E. Stokes Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[31]  R. Baron The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions , 2004 .

[32]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  The relationships between university IP regimes, scientists' motivations and their engagement with research commercialisation in Europe , 2017, Eur. J. Law Technol..

[33]  T. Healy,et al.  The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Education and Skills. , 2001 .

[34]  Jane Calvert,et al.  What’s Special about Basic Research? , 2006 .

[35]  Cornelia Lawson Academic patenting: the importance of industry support , 2013 .

[36]  John Walsh,et al.  Knowledge Creation Process in Science: Key Comparative Findings from the Hitotsubashi-NISTEP-Georgia Tech Scientists' Survey in Japan and the US , 2011 .

[37]  Michael A. Stoto,et al.  Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors Among Life Scientists , 1989 .

[38]  Vadim Grinevich,et al.  The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities , 2013 .

[39]  M. Wright,et al.  30 Years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship , 2011 .

[40]  M. Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context , 2014 .

[41]  A. Hughes Open innovation, the Haldane principle and the new production of knowledge: science policy and university–industry links in the UK after the financial crisis , 2011 .

[42]  Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro,et al.  Academic Inventors, Scientific Impact and the Institutionalisation of Pasteur's Quadrant in Spain , 2013 .

[43]  B. Looy,et al.  Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches , 2015 .

[44]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality and Direction of (Public) Research Output , 2009 .

[45]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  From Vulnerable to Venerated: The Institutionalization of Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences , 2007 .

[46]  P. Bentley,et al.  The relationship between basic and applied research in universities , 2015 .

[47]  M. Frese,et al.  Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review , 2011 .

[48]  Ammon Salter,et al.  The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship , 2011 .

[49]  P. Weingart From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles? , 1997 .

[50]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[51]  Monica Gaughan,et al.  Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[52]  M. Wright,et al.  Research and Technology Commercialization , 2008 .

[53]  G. Becker,et al.  Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition , 1993 .

[54]  Gerard George,et al.  Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity , 2009 .

[55]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Industry funding and university professors' research performance , 2005 .

[56]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists , 2010 .

[57]  M. Mallon,et al.  Careers in Public Sector Science: Orientations and Implications , 2005 .

[58]  Antonio Cantisani,et al.  Technological innovation processes revisited , 2006 .

[59]  W. Powell,et al.  To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer , 2001 .

[60]  Marjolein C. J. Caniëls,et al.  Research Orientation and Agglomeration: Can Every Region Become a Silicon Valley? , 2015 .

[61]  T. Burgess,et al.  Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit , 2013 .

[62]  S. Sedita,et al.  How Do Collaborations with Universities Affect Firms' Innovative Performance? The Role of "Pasteur Scientists" in the Advanced Materials Field , 2009 .

[63]  Poh Kam Wong,et al.  Do co-publications with industry lead to higher levels of university technology commercialization activity? , 2011, First International Technology Management Conference.

[64]  E. Welch,et al.  Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents , 2015 .

[65]  The changing identity of research: A cultural and conceptual history , 2016 .

[66]  Scott Shane,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation , 2004 .

[67]  Riccardo Fini,et al.  Inside or Outside the IP-System? Business Creation in Academia , 2008 .

[68]  C. Renault,et al.  Academic Capitalism and University Incentives for Faculty Entrepreneurship , 2006 .

[69]  S. Cheah Framework for measuring research and innovation impact , 2016 .

[70]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Carrières et contradictions en sciences de la vie : réponses du corps académique aux transformations de la connaissance et de ses utilisations , 2004 .

[71]  Peter Andras,et al.  Research: metrics, quality, and management implications , 2011 .

[72]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce , 1997, Journal of Labor Economics.

[73]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[74]  R. Fontana,et al.  What Drives the Emergence of Entrepreneurial Academics? A Study on Collaborative Research Partnerships in the UK , 2007 .

[75]  Evila Piva,et al.  The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: an empirical analysis , 2010 .

[76]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering , 2014 .

[77]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  An Individual‐Level Assessment of the Relationship between Spin‐Off Activities and Research Performance in Universities , 2012, ArXiv.

[78]  A. Bradley Talent Management for Universities. , 2016 .

[79]  L. Zucker,et al.  Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[80]  Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro,et al.  Do university–industry co-publication outputs correspond with university funding from firms? , 2016 .

[81]  Rosa Scoble,et al.  Institutional strategies for capturing socio-economic impact of academic research , 2010 .

[82]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[83]  Sarfraz A. Mian,et al.  Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape , 2016, Small Business Economics.