Publication:
Factores que impulsan a los investigadores a participar en contratos de investigación y desarrollo

Thumbnail Image
Files
View Statistics
Reference Managers
Mendeley
Indexers
Google Scholar CORE
QR Code
QR Code
Authors

Authors

Olaya-Escobar, Erika Sofía
Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina
Duarte-Velasco, Oscar Germán
Abstract (Spanish)
Este artículo investiga los factores que influyen en los investigadores a la hora de participar en contratos de colaboración en I+D entre universidad e industria, tomando como caso concreto el de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Estos contratos permiten a los estudiantes trabajar en proyectos reales en los que un grupo de académicos altamente calificados confrontan la teoría y la práctica para generar soluciones para el sector empresarial, lo que enriquece las prácticas académicas tradicionales. Para este estudio se utiliza un instrumento validado que distingue cinco dimensiones: actitud hacia las actividades de KTT (transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología), expectativa de contribución, incentivos de promoción, cultura y regulación universitaria y apoyo a los servicios de KTT. La muestra está compuesta por 184 profesores. La relevancia de cada factor para explicar la participación de investigadores en contratos de I+D (período 2010-2015) se investiga mediante un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales. Los resultados revelan que la cultura y un marco normativo favorable para las actividades de KTT sí importan, mientras que los servicios de apoyo parecen afectar negativamente. Las motivaciones, ya sean intrínsecas o extrínsecas, no tienen un efecto significativo.
Abstract (English)
This article investigates the factors that shape researchers’ willingness to engage in university-industry R&D contracts. The case of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia is examined. These contracts allow students to work in real-life projects, in which a group of highly qualified academics confront theory and practice to generate solutions for the business sector, thus enriching traditional academic practices. The instrument used in this study consists of five dimensions: attitude towards KTT (knowledge and technology transfer) activities, expectation of contribution, promotion incentives, university culture and regulation, and supporting KTT services. The sample comprises 184 professors. The relevance of each factor related with the participation of researchers in R&D contracts (period 2010-2015) is identified through a structural equation model. The key findings emphasize the role played by culture and a favourable normative framework for KTT activities, while support services seem to negatively affect researchers' engagement in R&D contracts. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations do not have a significant effect on the participation in R&D contracts.
Extent
19 páginas
URI: https://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/3382
Collections

Collections

AJ - Desarrollo y Gerencia Integral de Proyectos
References

Agasisti, T. & Bertoletti, A. (2019). Analysing the determinants of higher education systems’ performance–a structural equation modelling approach. Science and Public Policy, 46(6), 834-852

Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P. & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2-3), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.001

Arundel, A. & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559-580. https://doi. org/10.1080/1043859092000234311

Baldini, N. (2011). University patenting: Patterns of faculty motivations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(2), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.543329

Bengoa, A., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T. & Aparicio, G. (2020). A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-37

Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Gil-Doménech, D., & Torre de la, E. M. (2020). Examining strategies behind universities’ technology transfer portfolio: how different patterns of resource consumption can lead to similar technology transfer profiles. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2020-0013

Berbegal-Mirabent, J. & Sabate, F. (2015). Balancing basic and applied research outputs: a study of the trade-offs between publishing and patenting. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(10), 1143-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1060313

Bruneel, J., d’Este, P. & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.

Calderini, M., Franzoni, C. & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303-319

Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N. & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29(2), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00068-2

Chang, Y.-C., Chen, M.-H., Yang, P. Y. & Hua, M. (2008). Universities as patent —and licensing income— generating institutions: a survey in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology Management, 42(3), 290-309. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2008.018108

Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007

Crespi, G. & Dutrénit, G. (2014). Science, technology and innovation policies for development. Springer.

D´Este, P. & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-1313. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002

Di Gregorio, D. & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2 SPEC.), 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Franco, M. & Haase, H. (2015). University-industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 36, 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.002

Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1021674618658

Fullwood, R., Rowley, J. & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123-136. https://doi. org/10.1108/13673271311300831

Fuquen, H. S. & Olaya-Escobar, E. S. (2018). A technology transfer strategy based on the dynamics of the generation of intellectual property in Latin-America. Intangible Capital, 14(1), 203-252. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.873

Geuna, A. & Muscio, A. (2008). The governance of University knowledge transfer. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/

González-Pernía, J. L., Kuechle, G., Peña-Legazkue. (2013). An Assessment of the Determinants of University Technology Transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 6-17. https://doi. org/10.1177/0891242412471847

Guenther, J. & Wagner, K. (2008). Getting out of the ivory tower – new perspectives on the entrepreneurial university. European J. International Management, 2(4), 400-417

Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005- 5016-4

Hamilton, C. & Philbin, S. P. (2020). Knowledge Based View of University Tech Transfer – A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 62.

Hockaday, T. (2020). University Technology Transfer: What it is and how to Do it. JHU Press.

Ísmodes, E. (2015). Estudio sobre modelo de oficinas de transferencia tecnológica en el Perú. CONCYTEC - Serie Informe No 5.

Katz, J. & Abarza, J. (2002). Los derechos de propiedad intelectual en el mundo de la OMC. Serie Desarrollo Productivo. 118.

Lafuente, E. & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2017). Contract employment policy and research productivity of knowledge workers: an analysis of Spanish universities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1323226

Landry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J. & Halilem, N. (2013). Technovation Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33(12), 431-449. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.008

Landry, R., Amara, N. & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599-1615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.020

Lee, Y. S. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration : Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007895322042

Link, A. N. & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847042000254211

Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S. & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641- 655. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020

Maloney, W. F. & Perry, G. (2005). Hacia una política de innovación eficiente en América Latina. Revista CEPAL, 87(12), 25-44.

Morisson, A. & Pattinson, M. (2020). University-Industry Collaboration. JHU Press. https://www. interregeurope.eu/library/

Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N. & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6

Mowery, D. C. & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in National Innovation Systems. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 209-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0008

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3(1), 248-292.

Olaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J. & Alegre, I. (2020). Exploring the relationship between service quality of technology transfer offices and researchers ’ patenting activity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 157(November 2018), 120097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2020.120097

Olaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Alegre, I. Duarte Velasco, O. G. (2017). Researchers’ willingness to engage in knowledge and technology transfer activities: an exploration of the underlying motivations. R and D Management, 47(5), 715-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12263

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., … Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

Rojas, J. (2007). Capturando valor en las universidades y centros tecnológicos . Hacia la definición de estrategias, políticas y procedimientos de apropiabilidad, protección legal, explotación y transferencia tecnológica de resultados de proyectos de I+D+I en Chile. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(1), 4-10

Ryan, J. C. (2014). The work motivation of research scientists and its effect on research performance. R and D Management, 44(4), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12063

Ryan, J. C. & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Motivational recipes and research performance: A fuzzy set analysis of the motivational profile of high performing research scientists. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5299-5304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.128

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R. & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640-660. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm036

Thursby, J. G. & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.48.1.90.14271

Thursby, J., Jensen, R. & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007884111883

Wu, Y., Welch, E. W. & Huang, W.-L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36, 12-25. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.004