Information-Sharing in Academia and the Industry: A Comparative Study

Häussler, Carolin

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1670642

Cited by 38 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides obvious benefits of technology transfer and increased funding at research institutions through industry collaborations, scholars have expressed concerns that the shift towards entrepreneurial universities may entail negative implications for the rate and direction of academic research. Examples include trade-offs between publishing and patenting (Azoulay et al, 2009), academic entrepreneurship and the 'brain drain' in academia (Toole and Czarnitzki, 2010;Aghion et al, 2008), the dissemination of research results (Czarnitzki et al, 2011;Blumenthal et al, 1996a,b;Cohen et al, 1998;Gans and Murray, 2011;Thursby and Thursby, 2007), and the withholding of information, data and materials on which research is based (Walsh et al, 2007;Haeussler, 2011;Haeussler et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Non-technical summaryRecent decades have seen a shift in academic research towards the 'entrepreneurial university' model. Researchers are encouraged to actively participate in innovation through channels such as academic patenting, joint work with industry, or academic entrepreneurship. Besides obvious benefits of technology transfer and increased funding at research institutions through industry collaborations, scholars have expressed concerns that the shift towards entrepreneurial universities may entail negative implications for the rate and direction of academic research. Examples include trade-offs between publishing and patenting, academic entrepreneurship and the 'brain drain' in academia, the dissemination of research results, and the withholding of information, data and materials on which research is based.In this paper, we focus on how extramural and in particular industry funding of academic research affect academics' sharing behavior. Our research builds on a broad individual-level dataset of German academics. In the regressions we disentangle total extramural funding received from funding that comes specifically from industry sponsors and find that, controlling for personal characteristics, research characteristics, institutional affiliations, and scientific fields, scientists who receive external funding from any source are more likely to be denied access to others' research results or materials. Those who receive industry funding are more likely to deny others' requests for access. These results reflect the changes in incentives of researchers to disclose as funding moves towards the private sector. Our results have implications for both science institutions and funding bodies. Das Wichtigste in KürzeIn den vergangenen Jahren haben sich viele öffentliche Forschungseinrichtungen in zunehmendem March 2014 AbstractThe viability of modern open science norms and practices depend on public disclosure of new knowledge, methods, and materials. However, increasing industry funding of research can restrict the dissemination of results and materials. We show, through a survey sample of 837 German scientists in life sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences, that scientists who receive industry funding are twice as likely to deny requests for research inputs as those who do not. Receiving external funding in general does not affect denying others access. Scientists who receive external funding of any kind are, however, 50% more likely to ...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 von Hippel (1987) and Schrader (1991) report empirical evidence of know-how sharing of competing firms in the steel minimill industry. Bouty (2000), Häussler (2011), and Häussler et al (2014) present results for knowledge sharing in academic research. Gächter et al (2010) (modeling knowledge sharing as a coordination game with multiple equilibria) present experimental results for a setting of private-collective innovation (see von Hippel and von Krogh, 2006) in which private investors fund public goods innovation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Players face a simple tradeoff: concealing new information gives them a relative information advantage that translates into a payoff advantage, but it also breaks the feedback loop for future sharing, and they forego the chance to generate more information which increases absolute payoffs even when there is no disparity in those payoffs. Stein (2008) shows that if the probability 1 These settings include the steel minimills industry (von Hippel, 1987;Schrader, 1991), the semiconductor industry (Appleyard, 1996), academic research (Bouty, 2000;Häussler, 2011;Häussler et al, 2014), and financial investment (Crawford et al, 2017;Botelho, 2018;Rantala, forthcoming).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectations of Reciprocity when Competitors Share Information: Experimental Evidence

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informal exchange of information among competitors has been well-documented in a variety of industries, and one's expectation of reciprocity shown to be a key determinant. We use an indeterminate horizon centipede game to establish a feedback loop in the laboratory and show that an individual's beliefs about the recipient's intentions to reciprocate matter more than a recipient's ability to do so. This implies that reducing strategic uncertainty about a competitor's behavior has a stronger effect on information flows than reducing environmental uncertainty (about the competitor's ability). We further show results on the formation of beliefs and discuss managerial implications.

show abstract

“…Individual values, perceptions, previous experiences in knowledge transfer and priorities regarding the knowledge or technology being discussed are also known to impact the degree of transfer (Simpson and Ashworth 2009). Willingness to share knowledge also depends on the competitive value of the information and the perception of how the other party conforms to a norm of open science (Kneller 2001, Häussler et al 2009, Häussler 2011.…”

Section: Building Structural and Relational Capital Through Formal Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and relational support for innovation – formal versus informal knowledge exchange mechanisms in forest-sector learning

Bayne

Moore

Fielke

2016

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to drive forest sector productivity, an emphasis has been placed on effectively transferring science knowledge to technical foresters. Having a communications plan and engaging the right stakeholders early can induce a rich learning environment that strengthens context, knowhow and ensures mechanisms are in place for knowledge to be transferred. Formalized structures such as reports and seminars have evolved to improve the science transfer process, but it appears that the key success factor in enhancing uptake and learning may require an environment that encourages relationship building, particularly trust building between parties in developing informal and formal relationships. Informal interactions, though not often acknowledged in business, foster the conditions conducive to good knowledge exchangeco-ordination, co-operation and communication. Enhancing conditions in which these three aspects grow can lead to increased social capital, changed paradigms and reduced business costs due to sharing of knowledge and resources. We posit a conceptual framework describing the role of formal and informal knowledge exchange mechanisms and introduce research innovation clusters as a means to promote forest sector engagement and informal relational support for learning.Keywords: knowledge exchange, social capital, forestry, structural, relational, formal mechanisms, informal interaction, innovation cluster, interactive learning RÉSUMÉ Dans le but de stimuler la productivité du secteur forestier, on a cherché à renforcer le transfert efficace des connaissances scientifiques aux techniciens forestiers. Il suffit souvent d' établir un bon plan de communication et de mobiliser les bons partenaires dès le départ pour créer un milieu d'apprentissage stimulant qui renforce le contexte, le savoir-faire et assure la mise en place des mécanismes favorisant un transfert efficace des connaissances. Les structures formelles comme les rapports et les conférences ont changé, permettant ainsi d'améliorer le processus de transfert scientifique; mais il semble que le facteur déterminant pour améliorer l'apprentissage repose d'abord sur la mise en place d'un environnement favorable qui stimule le développement des relations entre les individus, particulièrement le renforcement de la confiance entre les parties avec l' établissement de relations formelles et informelles. Les interactions informelles, même si elles ne sont pas souvent reconnues au sein des entreprises, créent des conditions propices à un bon partage des connaissances : la coordination, la coopération et la communication. En améliorant les conditions propres à bonifier ces trois volets, il est dès lors possible d'accroître le capital social, de changer les paradigmes et de réduire les coûts pour l' entreprise grâce au partage des connaissances et des ressources. Nous proposons ici un cadre conceptuel qui décrit le rôle des mécanismes formels et informels d' échange de connaissances et nous introduisons des grappes d'innovation en recherche comme moyen de favor...

show abstract

Information-Sharing in Academia and the Industry: A Comparative Study

Cited by 38 publications

References 89 publications

Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University

Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University

Expectations of Reciprocity when Competitors Share Information: Experimental Evidence

Structural and relational support for innovation – formal versus informal knowledge exchange mechanisms in forest-sector learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About