TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
References- Coase, R. (1988). The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.- Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London és New York: Routledge.- Kirby, D. (2006). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal ofTechnology Transfer 31(5), 599-603.- Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. (2007). European Debates on the Knowledge Institution: The Modernization of the University at theEuropean Level. In P. Maassen, & J. Olsen, University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 3-22). Springer.- Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41, 179-194.- Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. The American Journal of Sociology87(3), 548-77.- Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010243
Page 4 and 5:
O-050IMPLICATION OF FIRMS’ LINKAG
Page 6 and 7:
P-042Building Regional Competitive
Page 8 and 9:
O-082Challenges for governmental ro
Page 10 and 11:
W-07FAPERJ’S CHANGING ROLE IN SUP
Page 12 and 13:
Research on intelligent products wi
Page 14 and 15:
Selected References- Bercovitz, J.,
Page 16 and 17:
References- CABRAL, R., DAHAB, S. (
Page 18:
References- Acker, Joan (1992). Gen
Page 21 and 22:
O-070The Role of the University and
Page 23 and 24:
O-120Absorptive capacity and the de
Page 25 and 26:
O-103Determinants of scientific int
Page 27 and 28:
W-11TRIPLE HELIX in R&D&I - Researc
Page 29 and 30:
Contributions and implicationsThe p
Page 31 and 32:
O-130The Triple Helix balancing act
Page 33 and 34:
O-059Research, facilitate, evaluate
Page 35 and 36:
P-047Gendered structures in academi
Page 37 and 38:
Strategic implicationsGiven the foc
Page 39 and 40:
O-098The role of Tunisian universit
Page 41 and 42:
ST-10Alliance Capability in Tunisia
Page 43 and 44:
O-139Individual-level antecedents o
Page 45 and 46:
P-008THE STATE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INN
Page 47 and 48:
ST-04LINKAGES BETWEEN THE DEVELOPME
Page 49 and 50:
P-009INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - AN IMP
Page 51 and 52:
O-106The multiple historical hermen
Page 53 and 54:
O-113Triple Helix System: The Heart
Page 55 and 56:
Implications of the FindingsBased o
Page 57 and 58:
Results and ImplicationsAn enhanced
Page 59 and 60:
Findings, Implications and Contribu
Page 61 and 62:
References- Archibugi, D., B-A. Lun
Page 63 and 64:
We construct a set of dependent var
Page 65 and 66:
ResultsThe results show that (i) th
Page 67 and 68:
FindingsThe foresight proceedings a
Page 69 and 70:
O-079Universities and Economic Deve
Page 71 and 72:
O-001TRIPLE HELIX MODEL TO CREATE G
Page 73 and 74:
O-033PROMOTION OF THE ENTREPRENEURI
Page 75 and 76:
O-086Innovation Challenges and Oppo
Page 77 and 78:
O-085BEWARE OF THE RED QUEENTariq D
Page 79 and 80:
P-017University cluster: Russian ex
Page 81 and 82:
O-053The Triple Helix of Knowledge:
Page 83 and 84:
O-131Forms and barriers in inter-fi
Page 85 and 86:
O-011CONTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITIES T
Page 87 and 88:
References (some main references)-
Page 89 and 90:
The entrepreneurial university mode
Page 91 and 92:
Keywords: Local Innovation Systems
Page 93 and 94:
O-056THE ROLE OF TRIPLE HELIX ORGAN
Page 95 and 96:
O-095Sustainable Triple Helix exper
Page 97 and 98:
O-009Interaction Between the Univer
Page 99 and 100:
2002.Disponível em: http://www.cas
Page 101 and 102:
Both companies operate within the o
Page 103 and 104:
Reference- Abe, S. (1998) “Region
Page 105 and 106:
1) The strong engagement and the su
Page 107 and 108:
3 Researching focusTo demonstrate t
Page 109 and 110:
FindingsThe general-model shows tha
Page 111 and 112:
CHESBROUGH, H.; VANHAVERBEKE, W.; W
Page 113 and 114:
This paper employs a multiple case
Page 115 and 116:
O-081Entrepreneurial Intentions & M
Page 117 and 118:
2.2. Reasons behind Scientific Mobi
Page 119 and 120:
Surveys and empirical findings of p
Page 121 and 122:
** 1.000 .053 .230 -.093 .355** .05
Page 123 and 124:
N3 I am working on to create a larg
Page 125 and 126:
P-005Management of Intellectual Pro
Page 127 and 128:
O-005Innovation systems in Norwegia
Page 129 and 130:
322.00Amita SahayaJennie Granat Tho
Page 131 and 132:
W-23When Triple Helix UnravelsDenis
Page 133 and 134:
P-041Climate for Innovation: a stud
Page 135 and 136:
P-056"Hands on for a sustainable ch
Page 137 and 138:
MethodologyWe try to identify the t
Page 139 and 140:
O-057Unraveling a large-scale innov
Page 141 and 142:
P-011Inside the Pandora box of the
Page 143 and 144:
O-042Interaction between Universiti
Page 145 and 146:
P-048Government and public policy i
Page 147 and 148:
Contribution and implicationsOur re
Page 149 and 150:
Recombination of three sub-dynamics
Page 151 and 152:
REFERENCES- Audretsch, D. B., B. Bo
Page 153 and 154:
Our analysis shows that the suppose
Page 155 and 156:
7. ReferencesChudnovsky, D., Lopez,
Page 157 and 158:
FindingsOwnership trends reveal thr
Page 159 and 160:
O-141Strategic openness for success
Page 161 and 162:
ReferencesChaminade, C. and Edquist
Page 163 and 164:
Main References:1. Etzkowitz H., Th
Page 165 and 166:
• Findings,In the analysis of the
Page 167 and 168:
O-026Collaborative Innovation in Tr
Page 169 and 170:
Impact and ContributionThis pilot s
Page 171 and 172:
ReferencesAsheim, B., Benneworth, P
Page 173 and 174:
They must work on each of the next
Page 175 and 176:
P-015A discussion on the Triple Hel
Page 177 and 178:
O-125Technology Transfer from Unive
Page 179 and 180:
References:Daghfous, A., Michael, H
Page 181 and 182:
Norwegian processing industry speci
Page 183 and 184:
ReferencesCooke, P. and Morgan, K.
Page 185 and 186:
Facilitating linkagesLester (2003)
Page 187 and 188:
arely oriented explicitly to a part
Page 189 and 190:
Consulting/servicingFaculty consult
Page 191 and 192: O-047Do foreign authors strengthen
Page 193 and 194: O-007Technological collaboration an
Page 195 and 196: O-094Academic entrepreneurship in d
Page 197 and 198: P-021Complementary or substitution
Page 199 and 200: O-097Software clusters in Brazil: a
Page 201 and 202: ST-14Evaluation and dissemination o
Page 203 and 204: References:- Amin, A. and Roberts,
Page 205 and 206: P-002Doing gender in Sweden’s inn
Page 207 and 208: O-054Triple Helix Relations as Cons
Page 209 and 210: P-006Why are WE not more Attractive
Page 211 and 212: W-06University-industry-government
Page 213 and 214: ST-07The Architecture of Innovation
Page 215 and 216: O-105The role of higher education i
Page 217 and 218: Contributions and ImplicationBy app
Page 219 and 220: References:- Colciencias 2008. Colo
Page 221 and 222: CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONSWe be
Page 223 and 224: - experts that were involved in the
Page 225 and 226: O-116The Triple Helix of a Regional
Page 227 and 228: - University-Industry- Government I
Page 229 and 230: - ETZKOWITZ, H.; LEYDESDORFF, L. Un
Page 231 and 232: REFERENCES- Borrell-Damian, L (2009
Page 233 and 234: Contributions and implicationsThe u
Page 235 and 236: O-134The determinants of entreprene
Page 237 and 238: O-091Caring for the business platfo
Page 239 and 240: P-054"I do not know if this is a go
Page 241: O-111JUMPSTARTING THE TRIPLE HELIX
Page 245 and 246: References- BAIN, J. S. Industrial
Page 247 and 248: References- Clark, A. (2004). Evalu
Page 249 and 250: Reference- Etzkowitz Henry, MIT and
Page 251 and 252: W-05Is industry-university interact
Page 253 and 254: O-021Motivation, obstacles and stra
Page 255 and 256: P-043Webometrics analysis of public
Page 257 and 258: O-093STI-DUI Innovation Profiles an
Page 259 and 260: O-118Technological Parks in Mexico:
Page 261 and 262: References:- Berman, E. P. (2008) W
Page 263 and 264: REFERENCES- BALLON, P.; PIERSON, J.
Page 265 and 266: - with foreign actors concerning di
Page 267 and 268: incubation houses operating in deve
Page 269 and 270: P-045Roles of the 3rd Strand of the
Page 271 and 272: P-007NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN ST
Page 273 and 274: O-045Empowering a State's Developme
Page 275 and 276: O-107Academic Research Groups and T
Page 277 and 278: ST-06University Patenting and Licen
Page 279 and 280: W-28Total Control? The gendering of
Page 281 and 282: O-015Stages of Development of Enter
Page 283 and 284: W-21To Join or Not to Join: Individ
Page 285 and 286: P-055Academic entrepreneurship in t
Page 287 and 288: References:- Admade, M.T. and Romer
Page 289 and 290: 'Technologies for the marketing of
Page 291 and 292: References- Audretsche, D.B. (1998)
Page 293 and 294:
P-013Determinants of university-ind
Page 295 and 296:
O-051“COMMUNICATION CHANNELS AMON
Page 297 and 298:
O-041Towards a Knowledge Society:Ex
Page 299 and 300:
P-036Research and Innovation privat
Page 301 and 302:
P-026AGROPOLIS DEL NORTE : a local
Page 303 and 304:
- Etzkowitz, H, 2004, The evolution
Page 305 and 306:
attitude and a scientific approach.
Page 307 and 308:
models for conduct his/hers process
Page 309 and 310:
terms of the addition of a fourth s
Page 311 and 312:
Desarrollo and Global Entrepreneurs
Page 313 and 314:
- Ehikhamenor, F.A., (2003). Intern
Page 315 and 316:
References:- Roberts E. B. and Eesl
Page 317 and 318:
some evidence that there might be p
Page 319 and 320:
universities in the "knowledge soci
Page 321 and 322:
Feldman (2006), and are not conside
Page 323 and 324:
W-19Fostering Team Science:Innovati
Page 325 and 326:
O-025The dynamic evolution of knowl
Page 327 and 328:
O-055The evolvement of triple helix
Page 329 and 330:
W-41Resource Mobilization and Busin
Page 331 and 332:
faculties of Engineering, Science a
Page 333 and 334:
O-002Patterns of the Innovation Eco
Page 335 and 336:
Bibliographic references- ETZKOWITZ
Page 337 and 338:
References- Bercovitz, J, and Feldm
Page 339 and 340:
References- Boden, Mark e Miles, Ia
Page 341 and 342:
References- Gibbons M., Limoge C.,
Page 343 and 344:
References- Brimble, P. & Doner, R.
Page 345 and 346:
O-101HOW MUCH THE ROLE OF THE OTHER
Page 347 and 348:
O-090PUBLIC PROGRAMME CONTEXTS AND
Page 349 and 350:
O-075The effectiveness of universit
Page 351 and 352:
O-076Technology Transfer in a Publi
Page 353 and 354:
O-052Between Myth and Reality: Deve
Page 355 and 356:
O-017Characterising Triple Helix li
Page 357 and 358:
P-004STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF EXTERNA
Page 359 and 360:
O-140Analysing entrepreneurial arch
Page 361 and 362:
O-104The co-evolvement of local dev
Page 363 and 364:
P-031Context Factors Moderating the
Page 365 and 366:
P-019Conception of the Development
Page 367 and 368:
O-088Key Ingredients of Innovation:
Page 369 and 370:
Methodology and research designData
Page 371 and 372:
References:- Chesbrough, H. (2003).
Page 373 and 374:
At present, government policy in Th
Page 375 and 376:
O-092Increase in Effectiveness of T
Page 377 and 378:
O-115Analysis of the conception, mo
Page 379 and 380:
O-036A PROPOSAL TO INTEGRATE THE UN
Page 381 and 382:
O-039NC State’s Centennial Campus
Page 383 and 384:
O-068The Impacts of Seed Grants as
Page 385 and 386:
O-123 Technology Transfer Process i
Page 387:
ST-15 The Critical Constructivism o
show all

TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?