Advertisement

A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature

  • Alejandro Bengoa
  • Amaia MasedaEmail author
  • Txomin Iturralde
  • Gloria Aparicio
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

This study explores academic research on technology transfer (TT) and the related themes. The TT field has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years and has grown rapidly, resulting in a large body of knowledge. Using a bibliometric approach, this study reviews related research issues as well as their influence and connections and provides directions for future research. It uses Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science database that includes 3218 bibliographic references. Several bibliometric analysis techniques and a subsequent review of the content of the most relevant documents are adopted. The performance analysis provided an updated overview of the evolution of the TT literature from 1969 to 2018 and quantitatively identified the most active and influential journals, articles, authors, and organizations. The co-authorship network analysis allowed us to identify and visualize the structure of relations between authors as well as determine the collaboration patterns among them. On the basis of the information supplied by the co-authorship network, the main literature was reviewed to identify the current status and research trends related to TT, identifying five main research streams and related topics. The implications of the study’s findings and directions for future TT research are finally discussed to enhance our understanding of TT agents and issues and support further research in this field.

Keywords

Technology transfer Bibliometrics Performance analysis Co-authorship analysis 

JEL Classification

M15 O3 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from Dr. Donald Siegel and anonymous referees on earlier versions of this paper. Any errors and misjudgements remain the responsibility of the authors.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation & Universities (MCIU/AEI/FEDER-UE) under the Grant Number RTI2018-097579-B-100, by UPV/EHU under the Grant Number GIU16/46, and by FESIDE.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Infometrics,5(4), 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation,29(6), 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy,42(2), 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal,47(4), 501–522.Google Scholar
  5. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science,48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review,89(3), 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apriliyanti, I. D., & Alon, I. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity. International Business Review,26(5), 896–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalization of technology and its implications for developing countries: Windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,70(9), 861–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Autio, E., & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: Review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management,10(7–8), 643–664.Google Scholar
  10. Baier-Fuentes, F., Merigo, J. M., Amoros, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal,15(2), 385–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of italian patent data. Research Policy,33(1), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,14(2), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organizational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 1195–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science,19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bierly, P. E., III, Damanpour, F., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies,46(3), 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birley, S. (2002). Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  17. Blackman, D., & Benson, A. M. (2012). Overcoming knowledge stickiness in scientific knowledge transfer. Public Understanding of Science,21(5), 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blomström, M., & Sjöholm, F. (1999). Technology transfer and spillovers: Does local participation with multinationals matter? European Economic Review,43(4–6), 915–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bozeman, B. (1994). Evaluating government technology transfer: Early impacts of the cooperative technology paradigm. Policy Studies Journal,22(2), 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy,29(4), 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies,30(3), 439–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review,20(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy,34(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen, G., & Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics,10(1), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing,20(2), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An aproach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical a lication to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science ma ing analysis software tool. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,63(8), 1609–1630.Google Scholar
  30. Cobo, M. J., Martinez, M. A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. F. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems,80, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior,27, 305–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Dabic, M. (2006). The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs and local subsidiaries: A croatian illustration. Journal of World Business,41(2), 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer,36(3), 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy,32(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer,33(3), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly,14(4), 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy,27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy,32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). The economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Feng, F., Zhang, L., Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation. Journal of Informetrics,9(1), 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Frame, J. D. (1979). National economic resources and the production of research in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science,9(4), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Freeman, C. (1989). Technology policy and economic performance Pinter. London: Publishers Great Britain.Google Scholar
  47. Gaviria-Marín, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,140, 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geisler, E. (1993). Technology transfer: Toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions. The Journal of Technology Transfer,18(3–4), 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva,47(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy,35(6), 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F. M., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 818–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,51(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Görg, H., & Greenaway, D. (2004). Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer,19(2), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics,86(4), 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly,44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40(6), 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy,45(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Heinzl, J., Kor, A., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2013). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer,38(5), 607–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy,35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hsieh, C., Lu, L. Y., Liu, J. S., & Kondrashov, A. (2014). A literature review with citation analysis of technology transfer. In Management of engineering and technology (PICMET). 2014 Portl& international conference on IEEE.Google Scholar
  62. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics,14, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal,24(4), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management,67(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lam, A. (2011). University–industry collaboration: careers and knowledge governance in hybrid organizational space. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances,2(1/2), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,31(4), 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,55(1), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2002). The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity. Industrial Management and Data Systems,102(6), 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy,34(7), 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy,34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Ecponomics,20(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management,26(1), 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy,31(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal,18(1), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Malik, K. (2002). Aiding the technology manager: A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation,22(7), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing,20(2), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics,36(3), 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics,36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moed, H., De Bruin, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics,33(3), 381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moran, T. H. (2001). Parental supervision: The new paradigm for foreign direct investment and development. Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  82. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy,30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology-transfer and competitiveness—The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics,19(1), 67–93.Google Scholar
  84. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,17(2), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh–Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science,48(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Murgado-Armenteros, E. M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., & Cobo, M. J. (2015). Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis. Scientometrics,102(1), 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,29(12), 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy,35(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Naseer, M. M., & Mahmood, K. (2009). Use of bibliometrics in LIS research. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal,19(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  90. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer,35(10), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Noh, H., & Lee, S. (2017). Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: A quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(3), 700–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research,14, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. O’shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy,34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (Vol. 5, pp. 9–24). International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.Google Scholar
  97. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics,2(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ranga, L., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. a lied research in belgium. Scientometrics,58(2), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Roberts, E. B., & Malonet, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management,26(1), 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change,16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, M. (1992). European technology policy evolution: Convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation,12(4), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal,22(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Saggi, K. (2002). Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer,17(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy,35(6), 772–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation & entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,13(2), 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Schraven, D. F., Hartmann, A., & Dewulf, G. P. (2015). Research orientations towards the ‘management’of infrastructure assets: An intellectual structure a roach. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,11(2), 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy,32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,21(1–2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. The Journal of Technology Transfer,37(4), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management,26(4), 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(3), 916–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,50(9), 799813.Google Scholar
  115. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation,30(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,17(2), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,82(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Szulanski, G., Ringov, D., & Jensen, R. J. (2016). Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organization Science,27(2), 304–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Teece, D. J. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological knowledge. Economic Journal,87(346), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Teixeira, A. A., & Mota, L. (2012). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links. Scientometrics,93(3), 719–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,44(5), 996–1004.Google Scholar
  122. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric ma ing. Scientometrics,84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Van Oorschot, J. A. W. H., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. M. (2018). A Bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,134, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science,21(4), 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., Jegak, U., & Abdullah, H. (2009). A review on the technology transfer models, knowledge-based and organizational learning models on technology transfer. European Journal of Social Sciences,10(1), 551–564.Google Scholar
  126. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012a). Defining the concepts of technology and technology transfer: A literature analysis. International Business Research,5(1), 61–71.Google Scholar
  127. Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012b). The Theoretical perspectives underlying technology transfer: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management,7(2), 277–288.Google Scholar
  128. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing,21(4), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Wang, J.-Y., & Blomström, M. (1992). Foreign-investment and technology transfer—A simple-model. Europena Economc Review,36(1), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy,37(8), 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy,35(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. (2008). Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management,34(5), 882–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods,18(3), 429–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IK4-Tekniker Technology CentreEibarSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of the Basque Country, UPV/EHUBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations