The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 485–503 | Cite as

Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment

  • Branco L. Ponomariov


This paper estimates the effect of select university characteristics on the propensity of individual scientists to interact with private sector companies. The academic prestige of an institution has a direct negative effect on scientists’ interactions with the private sector, while the level of industrial R&D expenditures has a direct positive effect on such interactions. Institutional characteristics also moderate the effect of some individual-level variables such as tenure status, grant activity, involvement with students and disciplinary effects.


University-industry relations Technology transfer Hierarchical linear modeling Organizational context 

JEL Classifications

O31 O32 



The research reported here was supported by grants from the NSF “Assessing R&D Projects’ Impacts on Scientific and Technical Human Capital Development” (SBR 98-18229, PI B. Bozeman), and “University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success” (REC-0447878, PI M. Gaughan). Special thanks to G. Yalcintas of SUNY, and W. Streitz and C. Burke of UC who kindly provided desegregated patent counts for each of the campuses within their respective university systems. Many thanks to P. Boardman and K. Johns for their comments on early drafts. Any opinions and mistakes in the paper are the author’s.


  1. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Reward systems and Nsf University Research Centers: The impact of tenure on University Scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States Universities—a survey and statistical analysis. Joural of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caro, J. M. A., de Lucio, I. F., & Gracia, A. G. (2003). University patents: Output and input indicators ... of what? Research Evaluation, 12(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corley, E., & Gaughan, M. (2005). Scientists’ participation in University Research Centers: What are the gender differences? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coupe, T. (2001). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the conference innovations and intellectual property: Economic and managerial perspectives, Brussels, November 22–23.Google Scholar
  7. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crow, M. M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiGregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from Engineering Research Centers. Research Policy, 31(3), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feller, I., & Roessner, D. (1995). What does industry expect from university partnerships. Issues In Science And Technology, 12(1), 80–84.Google Scholar
  14. Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness, 16(1), 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foltz, J., Kim, K., & Barham, B. (2001). A dynamic count data analysis of university Ag-biotech patents: Food marketing policy center Research report 56.Google Scholar
  16. Glick, W. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hal, R. (1991). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Link, A., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2006). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 422–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lowry, R. (1999). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. Poughkeepsie, NY: Vassaar College.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization—research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Payne, A. A., & Silow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ponomariov, B. L. (2006). Student centrality in university-industry interactions. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tornquist, K. M., & Kallsen, L. A. (1994). Out of the ivory tower—characteristics of institutions meeting the research needs of industry. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turk-Bicakci, L., & Brint, S. (2005). University-industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low- and middle-level performers. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5–6), 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(23), 12709–12716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar
  38. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Torero, M. (2002). Labor mobility from academy to commerce. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3), 629–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations