TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-107Academic Research Groups and Triple Helix dynamicsMarina Ranga, Stanford University, Clayman Institute For Gender Research Stony Brook University, New York, USASussex University, School of Business, Management and Economics, UKThe development of academic entrepreneurial activities has become a key priority in recent years for universities seeking tocontribute to local and regional development, strengthen their scientific productivity and create new revenue streams. Buildingan entrepreneurial university is a long-term process that depends on the one hand on developing the internal context, strategies,organizational structures and management processes that allow an optimal valorisation of academic R&D portfolio (Debackere,2000), and on the other, on creating close linkages between the university and the innovation ecosystem it belongs to. Thispaper illustrates this process by providing empirical evidence on the evolution of entrepreneurial activities at the FlemishCatholic University of Leuven (KUL), the largest Belgian university and one of the most successful European universities indeveloping an entrepreneurial agenda over more than 30 years.We analyse the structure, dynamics and group distribution of University-Industry (U-I) projects of 22 academic research groupsover the period 1985-2000, which reflect the evolution of an open learning process structured at different levels, from universityresearchers and administration to business partners and policy-making authorities, at regional, national and the EU level. The‘academic research group’ level of analysis is introduced in order to reflect a key change in the economics of knowledgeproduction over the last decades, moving away from the Mertonian approach of the individual researcher as the usual level foranalysing academic research production, which has a weak ability to explain research productivity given the collective nature ofresearch (e.g. Laredo and Mustar, 2000; Ziman, 1994).The focus on research groups also highlights new organizational and managerial perspectives, which show that the group isindeed a critical level of organisation where new formats such as cooperative and joint venture laboratories have emerged,demonstrating the complementarity between public and private research (e.g. Crow and Bozeman, 1987; Joly and Mangematin,1996). The contrast between scientific and industrial laboratories is no longer as clear-cut as emphasised in previous behaviouralstudies of academic communities, as research labs gradually enlarge their traditional vision of as loci exclusively devoted tobasic and applied research (Laredo and Mustar, 2000) and gradually move to a “quasi-firm” status (Etzkowitz, 2003).We interpret the observed findings in the context of local university policies and measures adopted over the last three decades,as well as economic and policy drivers outside the university. The communication at the interface between the Triple Helixactors, their “taking the role of the other” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Etzkowitz, 2008), in conjunction with the interplaybetween differentiation and integration of their fundamental missions ensures a permanent regeneration of the system in whichsuch processes evolve. The KUL example shows how localised cooperation between university, business and regional governmentauthorities can generate a new regional innovation environment that interacts with other elements at national and supranationallevel. The local effect is thus multiplied at various levels and acts as a selector for the creation and distribution of opportunitiesthat may generate further interactions with new patterns (Leydesdorff, 2000).We conclude with a discussion of policy implications, such as:1. The key role of R&D capabilities of both academic research groups and business partners for the propensity to engage incollaborative projectsThe fact that in industry, R&D capabilities are most often concentrated in large, R&D-intensive foreign multinational firms raisesthe question of how much of the economic benefits of joint U-I work are reaped by the regional/national scientific community andsociety. The presence of R&D-intensive domestic SMEs in such partnerships suggests the existence of ‘virtuous circles’ ofknowledge production and diffusion within the local/regional economy and an enhanced participation of SMEs in the ‘knowledgeeconomy’, but this trend is still very weak. Therefore, policy measures aimed at strengthening the university research potentialas well as the R&D and innovation potential of domestic SMEs can increase the local benefits from U-I research.2. The influence of the European Union in the development of U-I linkages at national and regional levelEU’s position as the second most important funding source of KUL U-I projects after industry, and the higher growth rate of EUfundedprojects compared to those funded by government and industry, raise the issue of the impact of supranational researchprogrammes, policies and networks vs. national efforts to consolidate research skills and scientific networks. With their dynamicgrowth patterns, U-I activities are an important driver of the construction of the European Research Area. Enhanced EU fundingto stimulate U-I linkages among European researchers may be beneficial for amplifying knowledge production, but may alsoamplify ‘leakages’ outside the ERA, given the increasing internationalisation of both academic and industrial R&D (Tijssen andVan Wijk, 1999).Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010275