Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering

This paper addresses three questions: First, what is the extent of research transfer in natural sciences and engineering among Canadian university researchers? Second, are there differences between various disciplines with regard to the extent of this transfer? And third, what are the determinants of research transfer? To answer these questions, the paper begins by differentiating between technology transfer and knowledge transfer. It then identifies the individual researcher as the unit of analysis of this study and introduces a conceptual framework derived from the resource-based approach of firms. The paper then reviews the literature on each of the factors included in the conceptual framework, beginning with the dependent variable, knowledge transfer. The conceptual framework includes four categories of resources and one category of research attributes that are likely to influence knowledge transfer. Based on a survey of 1,554 researchers funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), comparisons of means of research transfer across research fields were conducted. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify the determinants of research transfer by research field. The results of these analyses indicate that researchers transferred knowledge much more actively when no commercialization was involved than when there was commercialization of protected intellectual property. This paper thus adds to the relatively scarce evidence about knowledge transfer by examining knowledge transfer from a broader perspective than strict commercialization. The findings of this paper are also interesting for other reasons. We obtained statistical evidence indicating that researchers in certain research fields were much more active in knowledge transfer than those in other fields, thereby pointing to differences in levels of knowledge activities across research fields. Furthermore, we obtained evidence showing that only two determinants explained knowledge transfer in all the six research fields considered in this study, namely, focus of research projects on users’ needs, and linkages between researchers and research users. Statistical evidence obtained indicates that the other determinants that influence knowledge transfer vary from one research field to another, thus suggesting that different policies would be required to increase knowledge transfer in different research fields. The last part of the paper outlines the implications of the regression results for theory building, public policy and future research.

[1]  Harry Irwin,et al.  Relationship management for innovation: the central role of communication in australia's participation in two hi-tech industries , 1998 .

[2]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992 , 2002 .

[3]  Jerry G. Thursby,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Joanna Poyago-Theotoky,et al.  Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University–Industry Partnerships , 2002 .

[5]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

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

[7]  Eleanor Chelimsky,et al.  The Coming Transformations in Evaluation , 1997 .

[8]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Second Academic Revolution: The Role of the Research University in Economic Development , 1990 .

[9]  Y. Weiss,et al.  Output Variability, Academic Labor Contracts and Waiting Times for Promotion , 1981 .

[10]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  The Nature of Technology Transfer , 2002 .

[11]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[12]  J. M. Beyer,et al.  The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. , 1982 .

[13]  A. Amin,et al.  Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities , 2004 .

[14]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Opening the ivory tower's door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies , 2005 .

[15]  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 .

[16]  D B Hogan,et al.  Correlates of self-rated health in persons aged 85 and over: results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. , 1996, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[17]  C. Weiss.  The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[18]  Gene E. Hall,et al.  Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption , 1975 .

[19]  Richard A. Jensen,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: the Tale of University Licensing , 1998 .

[20]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[21]  Ari-Pekka Hameri,et al.  Technology transfer between basic research and industry , 1996 .

[22]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

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

[24]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[25]  J Frenk,et al.  Balancing relevance and excellence: organizational responses to link research with decision making. , 1992, Social science & medicine.

[26]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions , 2001 .

[27]  B. Looy,et al.  Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? , 2004 .

[28]  Sarv Devaraj,et al.  An empirical comparison of statistical construct validation approaches , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[29]  David Audretsch,et al.  University Spillovers: Does the Kind of Science Matter? , 2004 .

[30]  Mike Wright,et al.  Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies , 2005 .

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

[32]  Nathan Caplan,et al.  The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization , 1979 .

[33]  Gabriel Szulanski.  The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness , 2000 .

[34]  Shanthi Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[35]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[36]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[37]  Nicolas Carayol,et al.  Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory level evidence from a large European university , 2004 .

[38]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  The Impact of Academic Patenting on (Public) Research Output , 2009 .

[39]  Paula E. Stephan.  The Economics of Science , 1996 .

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

[41]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[42]  R. Noll,et al.  Privatizing public research. , 1994, Scientific American.

[43]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Gender Patterns of Research and Licensing Activity of Science and Engineering Faculty , 2005 .

[44]  J. P. Lester,et al.  The Utilization of Policy Analysis by State Agency Officials , 1993 .

[45]  D. J. Webber,et al.  The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process , 1991 .

[46]  Richard Florida,et al.  Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States , 1999 .

[47]  Y. Lee,et al.  'TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER' AND THE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY : A SEARCH FOR THE BOUNDARIES OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION , 1996 .

[48]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[49]  Jennifer W. Spencer,et al.  How Relevant is University-Based Scientific Research to Private High-Technology Firms? A United States–Japan Comparison , 2001 .

[50]  Réjean Landry,et al.  Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada , 2001 .

[51]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[52]  Cheol H. Oh,et al.  Issues for the new thinking of knowledge utilization: Introductory remarks , 1997 .

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

[54]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[55]  Orlandi Ma.  Health promotion technology transfer: organizational perspectives. , 1996 .

[56]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[57]  T. Booth,et al.  Researching Policy Research , 1990 .

[58]  D. Trune,et al.  University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis , 1998 .

[59]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Three Levels of Networking for Sourcing Intellectual Capital in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[60]  Réjean Landry,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2003 .

[61]  Patrick Cohendet,et al.  Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy , 2001 .

[62]  Arie Rip,et al.  The research system in transition , 1990 .

[63]  Robert F. Rich,et al.  Explaining use of information in public policymaking , 1996 .

[64]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Capitalizing knowledge: new intersections of industry and academia , 1998 .

[65]  G. B. Moore,et al.  Lessons on the utilization of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazards field , 1988 .

[66]  A. Diamond,et al.  The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. , 1986, Journal of gerontology.

[67]  V. Sauter,et al.  Approaches to the Study of Information Utilization in Public Agencies , 1984 .

[68]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management , 1992 .

[69]  J Lomas,et al.  Research and evidence–based decision making , 1997, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[70]  C. González-Brambila,et al.  Faculty Entrepreneurs and Research Productivity , 2007 .

[71]  R. M. Hall,et al.  A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage , 1993 .

[72]  M. van de Vall,et al.  Using Social Policy Research for Reducing Social Problems: An Empirical Analysis of Structure and Functions , 1982, The Journal of applied behavioral science.

[73]  Jack H. Knott,et al.  If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem ? , 1980 .

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

[75]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Gender Differences in the Rewards to Publishing in Academe: Science in the 1970s , 1998 .

[76]  J. Spender.  Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm , 1996 .

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

[78]  S. Levin,et al.  The Critical Importance of Careers in Collaborative Scientific Research , 1997 .

[79]  Alberto Di Minin,et al.  Commercializing the laboratory: the relationship between faculty patenting and publishing , 2004 .

[80]  Richard Harris,et al.  The knowledge‐based economy: intellectual origins and new economic perspectives , 2001 .

[81]  J. P. Lester,et al.  The utilization of public policy analysis: A conceptual framework☆☆☆ , 1990 .

[82]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists , 1991 .

[83]  P. Drucker.  Post-Capitalist Society , 1993 .

[84]  Guido V. Declercq.  A Third Look at the Two Cultures: The New Economic Responsibility of the University. , 1981 .

[85]  A Silversides.  Dissemination of research results to clinicians an art in itself. , 1997, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[86]  Herbert I. Fusfeld.  Industrial Research—Where It's Been, Where It's Going , 1995 .

[87]  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..

[88]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[89]  G. Hall.  Measuring Stages of Concern about the Innovation: A Manual for the Use of the SoC Questionnaire. , 1977 .