Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 313–329 | Cite as

University-owned and university-invented patents: a network analysis on two Italian universities

  • Saveria Capellari
  • Domenico De Stefano
Article

Abstract

The paper presents results from social network analysis applied to data on patenting of academics inventors employed in two Italian universities (Trieste University and Udine university, both located in Friuli Venezia Giulia region). The aim is to compare the co-invention networks generated by the academic inventors, tenured by one of the two universities, in their patenting activity with several organisations—firms, public research organisations—and in their activity for patents owned by one of the two universities. Results show that, despite the structural similarity, non-marginal differences emerge in the interaction of the two forms of patenting across the two universities. Empirical evidence suggests new research questions related in particular to the role played by the differing university patenting strategies in shaping local networks.

Keywords

Academic patenting Science-industry linkages Social network analysis Blockmodeling Brokerage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was financially supported by the project “Analisi statistica di dati relazionali: aspetti metodologici e applicazioni a reti di diffusione della conoscenza”, funded by the “Università degli Studi di Trieste - Finanziamento per Ricercatori di Ateneo2011″ and by the P.O.R. 2007/2013 FSE Project S.H.A.R.M. “Supporting Human Assets in Research and Mobility”, Azione 1.1, promoted by the “Consorzio per l’AREA di ricerca scientifica e tecnologica di Trieste”. We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful and valuable comments.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2010). Assessing public–private research collaboration: is it possible to compare university performance? Scientometrics, 84, 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, L. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge. A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barirani, A., Agard, B., & Beaudry, C. (2013). Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: A patent co-citation network perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 1111–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedetti, G., De Stefano, D., & Salera, A. (2011) Non solo entrate: il percorso della conoscenza attraverso i conti terzi delle Università di Trieste e Udine, DEAMS Working Papers series, n.2/2011.Google Scholar
  6. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi, M., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ e inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan, R., & Jonard, R. (2003). The dynamics of collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35, 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Stefano, D., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). Modelling multiple interactions in science and technology networks. Industry and Innovation, 20, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doreian, P., Batagelj, V., & Ferligoj, A. (2004). Generalized Blockmodeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Èrdi, P., Makovi, K., Somogyvári, Z., Strandburg, K., Tobochnik, J., Volf, P., et al. (2013). Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network. Scientometrics, 95, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction: Universities in the global knowledge economy. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations (pp. 1–8). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  16. Faust, K., & Wasserman, S. (1992). Blockmodels: Interpretation and evaluation. Social Networks, 14(1), 5–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. I. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18, 938–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European University research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences. Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 607–632.Google Scholar
  19. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Scientometrics, 58, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Scientometrics, 70, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lissoni, F. (2010). Academic inventors as brokers. Research Policy, 39, 843–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information, 34, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., & Sanditov, B. (2011). Small worlds in networks of inventors and the role of science: An analysis of france. Bureau d’économie theorique et appliquée. Documents de travail, 33, 2011–2018.Google Scholar
  27. Lissoni, F., Sanditov, B., Sanditov, B., & Tarasconi, G. (2006). The Keins database on academic inventors: Methodology and contents. CESPRI working paper 181. Milan: Università L. Bocconi.Google Scholar
  28. Maggioni, M. A., Nosvelli, M., & Uberti, T. E. (2007). Space versus networks in the geography of innovation: A European analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 471–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalfe, J. S. (2005). Systems failure and the case for innovation policy. In P. Llerena & M. Matt (Eds.), Innovation policy in a knowledge based economy (pp. 47–74). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, M. (2006). Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Scientometrics, 68, 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer, M., Du Plessis, M., Tukeva, T., & Utecht, J. (2005). Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems. Scientometrics, 63, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmock, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muscio, A. (2009). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernandez-Esquinas, M., & Espinosa-de-los-Montero, E. (2010). Measuring university–industry collaboration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 84, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephan, P. E. (2010). Handbook of the economics of innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The economics of science (Vol. 1, pp. 217–273).Google Scholar
  37. Ter Wal, A. L. J., & Boschma, R. A. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. The Annals of Regional Science, 43, 739–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uzzi, B., Amaral, L. N., & Reed-Tsochas, F. (2007). Small-world networks and management science research: A review. European Management Review, 4, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verspagen, B. (2005). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. A study on the history of fuel cell research. Maastricht: Merit Research Paper.Google Scholar
  40. Von Proff, S., & Dettmann, A. (2013). Inventor collaboration over distance: A comparison of academic and corporate patents. Scientometrics, 94, 1217–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Business, Mathematics, and Statistics “Bruno de Finetti”University of TriesteTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Area Science ParkTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations