Research and innovation in higher education: empirical evidence from research and patenting in Brazil

  • João Ricardo Faria
  • Peter F. Wanke
  • João J. Ferreira
  • Franklin G. MixonJr.
Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

This study presents a hierarchical differential game between universities and scholars in order to examine innovation and research in higher education. In this stylized setup, scholars maximize the impact of their research, and universities maximize their market value. Innovations play a key role among the incentives given by the university to boost scholars’ productivity, as measured by academic publications and citations, which translates into scholars’ professional success. The scholars’ academic productivity increases university reputation and market value. Using Brazilian data, seemingly unrelated regression estimations suggest that the number of published papers grows with external funding and the percentage of faculty holding doctorate degrees, while the number of citations is associated with the presence of graduate programs and higher teaching quality. Market evaluation is, however, negatively affected by innovation, suggesting a lack of focus on patenting and technology transfer in Brazil.

Keywords

Innovation in higher education Scholarly publications and citations Teaching University management Seemingly unrelated regression Brazil 

JEL Classification

I23 O39 C39 C79 

References

  1. Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Cross-national analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1247–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalization of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27, 704–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, W. E., Jr. (1975). The university professor as a utility maximizer and producer of learning, research and income. Journal of Human Resources, 10, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergman, E. M. (2010). Knowledge links between European universities and firms: A review. Papers in Regional Science, 89, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besancenot, D., Faria, J. R., & Mixon, F. G., Jr. (2017). Academic research and the strategic interaction of scholars and editors: A two-stage game. International Game Theory Review, 19, 1–16.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Besancenot, D., Faria, J., & Vranceanu, R. (2009). Why business schools do so much research: A signaling explanation. Research Policy, 38, 1093–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borooah, V. K. (1994). Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management. Public Choice, 81, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bressan, A., & Shen, W. (2004). Semi-cooperative strategies for differential games. International Journal of Game Theory, 32, 561–593.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M., & Barczak, G. (2017). The changing bases of mutual trust formation in inter-organizational relationships: A dyadic study of university–industry research collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 74, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, T. R., & Gomolińska, A. (2000). The theory of socially embedded games: The mathematics of social relationships, rule complexes, and action modalities. Quality & Quantity, 34, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, T. R., Gomolinska, A., & Meeker, L. D. (2001). The theory of socially embedded games: Applications and extensions to open and closed games. Quality & Quantity, 35, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busdieker-Jesse, N., Nogueira, L., Onal, H., & Bullock, D. (2016). The economic impact of new technology adoption on the U.S. apple industry. Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 41, 549–569.Google Scholar
  13. Carmichael, H. L. (1988). Incentives in academics: Why is there tenure? Journal of Political Economy, 96, 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conceição, O., Fontes, M., & Calapez, T. (2012). The commercialisation decisions of research-based spinoff: Targeting the market for technologies. Technovation, 32, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coria, J., & Zhang, X.-B. (2015). State-dependent enforcement to foster the adoption of new technologies. Environmental & Resource Economics, 62, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowan, R., & Zinovyeva, N. (2013). University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy, 42, 788–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dastidar, K. G. (2015). Nature of competition and new technology adoption. Pacific Economic Review, 20, 696–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Del-Vecchio, R. R., Britto, J., & de Oliveira, B. F. (2014). Patterns of university–industry interactions in Brazil: an exploratory analysis using the instrumental of graph theory. Quality & Quantity, 48, 1867–1892.Google Scholar
  19. Diánez-González, J., & Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2016). How management team composition affects academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of conflict. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 530–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dorner, M., Fryges, H., & Schopen, K. (2017). Wages in high-tech start-ups—Do academic spin-offs pay a wagepremium? Research Policy, 46, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drivas, K., Lei, Z., & Wright, B. (2017). Academic patent licenses: Roadblocks or signposts for nonlicensee cumulative innovation? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El Ouardighi, F., Kogan, K., & Vranceanu, R. (2013). Publish or teach? Analysis of the professor’s optimal career path. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37, 1995–2009.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report, 6, 7–9.Google Scholar
  24. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix: University–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.Google Scholar
  25. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national system and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faria, J. R. (2004). Some reflections on incentives for publication: The case of the CAPES’ list of economic journals. Economia Aplicada, 8, 791–816.Google Scholar
  27. Faria, J. R. (2005). The games academics play: Editors versus authors. Bulletin of Economic Research, 57, 1–12.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faria, J. R., Araujo, A. F., Jr., & Shikida, C. D. (2007). The international research of academic economists in Brazil: 1999–2006. Economia Aplicada, 11, 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Faria, J. R., & McAdam, P. (2015). Academic productivity before and after tenure: The case of the ‘specialist’. Oxford Economic Papers, 67, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Faria, J. R., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Salter, S. P. (2012). An economic model of workplace mobbing in academe. Economics of Education Review, 31, 720–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2015). Research quality evaluation: Comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors. Quality & Quantity, 49, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University–industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freitas, I., Marques, R., & Silva, E. (2013). University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Research Policy, 42, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galati, F., Bigliardi, B., Petroni, A., & Marolla, G. (2017). Which factors are perceived as obstacles for the growth of Italian academic spin-offs? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giudice, M., Carayannis, E., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goel, R. K. (2006). The games academics play: Comment. Bulletin of Economic Research, 58, 19–23.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gonzalez, S., & Lardon, A. (2018). Optimal deterrence of cooperation. International Journal of Game Theory, 47, 207–227.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Greene, W. H. (2017). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guimarães, B. (2011). Qualis as a measuring stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 31, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Guo, L., Zhang, M., Dodgson, M., & Cai, H. (2017). An integrated indicator system for patent portfolios: Evidence from the telecommunication manufacturing industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 600–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gupta, N., Weber, C., Peña, V., Shipp, S. S., & Healey, D. (2014). Innovation policies of Brazil, Institute for Defense Analyses. https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corpor+k,mjnate/Files/Publications/STPIPubs/2014/ida-p-5039.ashx.
  43. Haddad, E., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Sidone, O. J. G. (2017). Produção científica e redes de colaboração dos docentes vinculados aos programas de pós-graduação em economia no Brasil. Estudos Econômicos, 47, 617–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Han, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Empirical analysis of technology transfer in Korean universities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1–26.Google Scholar
  47. Horne, C., & Dutot, V. (2017). Challenges in technology transfer: An actor perspective in a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Horta, H., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). Skilled unemployment and the creation of academic spin-offs: a recession-push hypothesis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 798–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kafouros, M., Wang, C., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhang, M. (2015). Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions. Research Policy, 44, 803–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2016). Social capital of academics and their engagement in technology and knowledge transfer. Science and Public Policy, 43, 646–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kapoor, R., Karvonen, M., Mohan, A., & Kässi, T. (2016). Patent citations as determinants of grant and opposition: Case of European wind power industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 950–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leal, R., Oliveira, J., & Soluri, A. (2003). Perfil da pesquisa em finanças no Brasil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43, 91–104.Google Scholar
  55. Lee, S., Kim, W., Lee, H., & Jeon, J. (2016). Identifying the structure of knowledge networks in the US mobile ecosystems: Patent citation analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee, C., Kim, J., Noh, M., Woo, H.-G., & Gang, K. (2017). Patterns of technology life cycles: Stochastic analysis based on patent citations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Li, M., Nguyen, B., & Yu, X. (2016). Competition vs. collaboration in the generation and adoption of a sequence of new technologies: A game theory approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 348–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin, C., & Chang, C.-C. (2015). A patent-based study of the relationships among technological portfolio, ambidextrous innovation, and firm performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27, 1193–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lowe, C. U. (1982). The triple helix—NIH, industry, and the academic world. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 55, 239–246.Google Scholar
  60. Mena-Chalco, J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., Lopes, F. M., & Cesar, R. M. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1424–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47, 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mixon, F. G., Jr. (1997). Team production in economics: A comment and extension. Labour Economics, 4, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Hsing, Y. (1994). The determinants of out-of-state enrollments in higher education: A Tobit analysis. Economics of Education Review, 13, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., & Toschi, L. (2016). Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: A cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1377–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Toschi, L. (2017). Financing technology transfer: Assessment of university-oriented proof-of-concept programmes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Novaes, W. (2008). A pesquisa em economia no Brasil: uma avaliação empírica dos conflitos entre quantidade e qualidade. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 62, 467–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, B., Chelariu, C., & Johnson, W. (2016). The impact of social and contractual enforcement on reseller performance: The mediating role of coordination and inequity during adoption of a new technology. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31, 808–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ponte, D., Mierzejewska, B., & Klein, S. (2017). The transformation of the academic publishing market: Multiple perspectives on innovation. Electronic Markets, 27, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D., & Rudnik, P. (2017). The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 206–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernández-Esquinas, M., & Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, E. (2010). Measuring university–industry collaboration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 84, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Renault, T., Mello, J., Fonseca, M., & Yates, S. (2016). A chip off the old block: Case studies of university influence on academic spin-offs. Science and Public Policy, 43, 594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roberts, D. E., & Malone, E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosendo-Rios, V., Ghauri, P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Empirical analysis of the key factors that can contribute to university–industry cooperational success from a relationship marketing approach. European Journal of International Management, 10, 647–677.Google Scholar
  76. Sábato, J., & Mackenzie, M. (1982). La Producción de Tecnología: Autónoma o Transnacional. Geneva: Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales.Google Scholar
  77. Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G., Souza, J., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Silva, E. M. P. (2007). A experiência da colaboração do departamento de engenharia metalúrgica e de materiais da UFMG com empresas: Lições para a Lei da Inovação. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 6, 433–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Silva, S. (2009). Going parochial in the assessment of the Brazilian economics research output. Economics Bulletin, 29, 2832–2852.Google Scholar
  81. Silva, E., & Segatto, A. (2017). Innovation in universities: Brazilian academic research in the period of 2001–2010. International Journal of Innovation, 5, 371–390.Google Scholar
  82. Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2016). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation, 50(51), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sørensen, C., & Landau, J. (2015). Academic agility in digital innovation research: The case of mobile ICT publications within information systems 2000–2014. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stigler, G. J. (1982). Merton on multiples, denied and affirmed. The economist as preacher and other essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Suzigan, W., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2011). The underestimated role of universities for the Brazilian system of innovation. Revista de Economia Política, 31, 3–30.Google Scholar
  86. Tai, Y., & Ting, Y.-L. (2016). New aspect of technology adoption: A case study of students’ self-made English-learning video. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 663–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Triple Helix Research Group. (2018). The triple helix concept. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. https://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept.Google Scholar
  88. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 585–612.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Ricardo Faria
    • 1
  • Peter F. Wanke
    • 2
  • João J. Ferreira
    • 3
  • Franklin G. MixonJr.
    • 4
  1. 1.MPA ProgramUniversity of Texas – El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.COPPEAD Graduate Business SchoolFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Business Sciences Research UnitUniversity of Beira Interior and NECECovilhãPortugal
  4. 4.Center for Economic EducationColumbus State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations