TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-031Why do university researchers collaborate with industry? Evidence fromGerman universitiesViktor Slavtchev, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, GermanyPublic academic institutions, in particular universities, are considered as important element of the system of innovation. Byconducting R&D activities universities they generate new economically valuable knowledge and technologies, enhancetechnological opportunities and the productivity of private R&D, and induce firms to spend more on R&D (Jaffe 1989; Nelson1986; Mansfield 1991, 1998).Accordingly, a number of studies emerged that address the question about the channels for transfer of knowledge and technologiesfrom universities into industry. Among the various ways in which university knowledge may become available to private firms, thedirect/face-to-face interactions between universities and private firms are found crucial for the transmission of academic knowledgeand technologies. Cohen et al. (2002) ask the managers of US manufacturing firms to assess the importance of differentpossibilities to source academic knowledge and find that the direct (face-to-face) university-industry interactions such asmeetings and conferences were considered as "moderately" or "very" important by 35.1 percent of the respondents, informalcontacts by 35.6 percent, consulting by 31.8 percent, contract research by 20.9 percent, and cooperative joint ventures by 17.9percent. The share of firms' managers that find patents, licenses, personnel exchange, and hiring of scientists "moderately" or"very" important for sourcing academic knowledge is 17.5 percent, 9.5 percent, 5.8 percent, and 19.6 percent, respectively.Moreover, Thursby and Thursby (2003) survey industry licensing professionals in the US and report that of the 300 respondents,188 had not licensed-in from U.S. universities during the period 1993-1997, though many had sponsored research at U.S.universities. The main reasons for not licensing-in university technologies are associated with the embryonic nature of theacademic knowledge and the fact that its is chiefly embodied in its discoverers. Hence, firms are interested in establishingdirect (face-to-face) relations to universities in order to further develop university research towards commercial ends. Moreover,according to Thursby and Thursby (2003: 209) one of the licensing executives suggests that "the sole purpose of licensinguniversity technologies was to establish a relationship with the faculty inventor." Agrawal and Henderson (2002) assess theimportance of different channels for transfer of academic knowledge from the faculty perspective by asking researchers at MIT(MA) to estimate the importance of different channels. Research collaborations, consulting, conferences and conversationsaccount for 12.1 percent, 25.1 percent, 5.2 percent, and 6.3 percent of the influence research conducted at MIT has on industryactivities. Patents and licenses account for only 6.6 percent.Consequently, scholars increasingly focus on university-industry collaborations as a mean of knowledge transfer. Till date anumber of studies emerge which analyze university-industry interactions. Most studies focus, however, on the private sectorside. Accordingly, the rationales for private actors to collaborate with public research institutions are well illuminated (cf.Belderbos et al. 2004; Veugelers and Cassiman 2005; Cassiman, Veugelers and Zuniga 2007, 2008). However, it takes alwaystwo to tango: private companies and universities. Hence, if researchers are to arrive at a better understanding of the establishmentof university-industry linkages, it becomes inevitable to understand the factors and motives that determine the collaborationbehavior of university researchers. This is particularly important for policy aiming to stimulate university-industry linkages, sincethere is some evidence that the performance of the innovation system considerably depends on the intensity university-industryinteractions (Feldman and Desrochers 2003; Fritsch and Slavtchev 2007, 2008). In spite of the importance of these questions,comparable little is known about the university perspective. Schartinger et al. (2001) and D'Este and Patel (2007) are among thefew exceptions looking at university-industry linkages from the university perspective. However, since the unit of analysis inSchartinger et al. (2001) is the department level there are only indirect conclusions possible about the probability to collaborateat the level of the individual researcher. D'Este and Patel (2007) choose the individual researchers as a unit of analysis, the mainfocus of their study is, however, the simultaneous engagement of scholars in various modes of interaction and not on the factorsthat explain the intensity of particular collaboration mode.Against this background, this study analyzes the importance of individual characteristics (research excellence, private sectorwork experience, collaboration experience, age), motives (public support, fund raising, learning and idea generation, reputation),and institutional factors (TTO involvement, peer effects) for the intensity of various collaboration modes (informal contacts,meetings and workshops, technical services for private firms, consulting, commissioned R&D (ordered by private firms), jointR&D, and advanced training for private firms) university professors have with private firms. The analysis in this study is based onstandardized postal survey of professors at seven German universities (four universities and three technical colleges) andconsiders the period between 2002 and 2005.The results suggest that the informal contacts, followed by the two forms of virtual R&D, commissioned R&D (ordered by firms)and joint R&D, are the most frequently used interaction mode between university professors and private companies. Interactionmodes such as consulting, technical services, meetings and workshops, and advanced training appear less frequently used.As to the determinants of researcher collaboration intensity, the results of this study show that frequency of use of the particularinteraction mode is driven by different factors and motives. The possibility to discover new research opportunities seems to beimportant incentive for having informal contacts to private firms, for participating in meetings, workshops and conferences, andfor conducting joint R&D. Technical services for firms and commissioned R&D seem to be motivated by the possibility to raisefunds that can be used for further independent research.The results suggest also that university researchers consider particular collaboration modes such as informal contacts, consulting,commissioned R&D and advanced training as a mean to build up reputation and image. Moreover, this study providesMadrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010316