TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-032Difficulties in Integrating the “Third Mission” – Experiences of UniversityScientists in HungaryAdam Novotny, Institute of Economic Science - Eszterhazy Karoly College, HungaryEurope, universities have been seen as major contributors to national and regional economic development, and especiallythrough the process of commercializing research results (‘third mission’), since buzzwords such as ‘competitiveness’ and‘knowledge-based society’ re-entered political talks. Building on economic theory, European policymakers consider knowledgeas a source of economic growth, and accordingly, intend to boost the ‘marketization’ of academic science by changing thelegislation of higher education and that of intellectual property (IP), as well as the structure of research funding (Nowotny, Scott,& Gibbons, 2003). The policy measures focusing on university-industry relations are part of a broader reform-package that aimto increase universities’ autonomy, accountability and interactivity with society and the business sphere. These ambitiousaspirations feed upon the admiration of the U.S. higher education system (Kirby, 2006) and especially on the very few examples(MIT, Stanford) that can be considered as exceptions even in the U.S., due to their special economic geography and uniqueresources (Wright, Clarysse, Mustar, & Lockett, 2007).In Hungary, the Innovation Act (2004) and new funding mechanisms for applied research and development have given way tosimilar developments to those of the U.S. in the aftermath of the Bayh-Dole Act (1980): universities have gained title to academics’inventions, set up IP management policies and technology transfer offices to guide commercialization, launched researchconsortia with businesses to be eligible for government grants, and are allowed to establish (spin-off) enterprises to facilitatecommercialization. The paradox of the Hungarian situation is that the American technology transfer model has been applied toa higher education system that is yet to undergo transformation in many other areas (e.g. university governance, managementand finance) of the intended European reform.On the basis of the above considerations, the main aim of this paper is to scrutinize university scientists’ perceptions about thegrowing emphasis on the third mission within Hungarian universities. As most papers in the field examine the phenomenon inNorth American and Western European contexts, it is far from clear whether institutions rooted in an Eastern European postsocialistenvironment (e.g. Hungary) show the same patterns of entrepreneurial transformation. Although EU and national leveldecision makers demonstrate a great preference for emulating U.S. research policy, it is unlikely that measures modelled afterthe Bayh-Dole Act will deliver the same results in a different institutional and cultural framework as in the U.S. (Maassen &Olsen, 2007), where higher education institutions have nurtured a customer service state of mind since as early as the latenineteenth century (Etzkowitz, 2002).MethodIn May/June 2009, I administered a web survey to more than 7,000 university scientists (22.6% responded) of engineering,medical science, natural science and agricultural science. The findings presented are based on the answers of 1,562 academicsof fourteen Hungarian state-owned universities. Prior to the web survey, I conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews withtechnology transfer office staff and management at seven universities. The interviews were exploratory in nature, while the webbasedsurvey addressed to examine causal relationships as well, such as the association between university scientists’entrepreneurial activity and their attitude toward the third mission and the Bayh-Dole-type system (institutionalization of academicentrepreneurship). I used various multivariate statistics to define variables and to measure the level of association betweenthem. I also collected qualitative data from academics through open ended questions, which helped in interpreting quantitativeresults.FindingsAlbeit, only a small fraction of university scientists participate actively in academic entrepreneurship, their majority accept andeven support the third mission as a new academic norm. Those who have more positive (or less negative) attitude toward thethird mission are more active in commercialization, however, the relationship between attitude and behavior is quite week. Thelack of strong association points to the role of other factors in determining the diffusion of entrepreneurship among academics.Among these factors, the scientist’s field of research and research orientation (basic versus applied) as well as his/her department(attitude of colleagues and heads) proved to be more decisive. Qualitative responses also revealed that besides the aforementionedfactors, the main constraints of integrating the third mission are academics’ limited resources such as time, energy andcompetences.Although academics in general would welcome the university’s assistance in commercializing research results, they are lesspositive about offering IP to and sharing income (arising from commercialization) with the institution. Moreover, those scientistswho (besides their university duties) work in spin-off enterprises foster significantly more negative attitudes toward sharing IPand profits with the university than their non-entrepreneurial counterparts. Qualitative data pinpoint the role of transaction costs(Coase, 1988; Williamson, 1981) in explaining the differing attitudes of academics, who indicated that establishing spin-offenterprises is (partly) motivated by avoiding intramural transaction costs as for example bureaucracy, administrative work andincome redistribution. Entrepreneurial academics thus probably regard market transaction costs to be lower than the costs ofcooperating with the university. Hence, universities had better consider the costs of institutionalizing the third mission from thescientists’ point of view, as success largely depends on their willingness to disclose inventions and to cooperate with theinstitution.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010242