Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation

Abstract

There is a paucity of papers dealing with the system characteristics of laboratories or, to put it another way, the institutional character of research organizations. Neither R&D economics nor the sociology of science, as traditionally conceived, has made much headway in providing insight into sets of R&D laboratories and their evolution. Drawing upon an empirical study in the plant breeding and biochemical industry, this paper presents a typology of public research laboratories which is based on three dimensions : scientific production and visibility, type of funding (public or private) and homogeneity of research themes. Three types of public laboratory. emerge: the first, called "research centres for the profession", is composed essentially of laboratories with close ties with SMEs and industry associations. The second, called "designers of generic tools and methods", is oriented towards basic research and themes of general interest to the industry as a whole. The third type, called "basic and specialised laboratories", strives to develop its scientific visibility. Contracts between this type of laboratory and industry are mainly bilateral and demonstrate the complementarity between public and private research. Each type of laboratory develops specific types of relationship with private partners. The authors have identified three logics underlying these relationships: proximity, market and club. The main objective of contracts based on a proximity logic is to test an hypothesis, while the knowledge produced is mostly tacit and specific. By contrast, knowledge is entirely coded and specific in the market logic, where the aim of the contract is to implement expertise in order to relieve a scientific bottleneck. In a club logic, the aim of contracts is to produce * We would like to thank the National Institute for Agronomic Research which gave financial support and access to information. Many thanks to our colleagues of SERD whose contribution was critical. We thank Thierry Gonard [ESC Nantes] and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Of course, all mistakes remain ours. The first version of this paper was presented at EUNETIC conference, Strasbourg, 1994. 2 a technical referent. In each kind of contract, the learning trajectories, modes of coordination, role of trust and degree to which contracts are complete or not, are different. October 1995 PROFILE OF PUBLIC LABORATORIES, INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS AND ORGANIZATION OF R & D : THE DYNAMICS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN A LARGE RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONBased on a detailed analysis of public research laboratories' relations with industry, this contribution challenges certain stereotypes on which the economics of technological change is founded. It also highlights the various learning trajectories of public laboratories.Generally speaking, stereotypes are highly resistant, especially when they are part of a secular scientific tradition. This very broad assertion is particularly relevant to the economic analysis of research laboratories. Relying o...

The Carrers of Social Science Doctoral Graduates in France: the Influence of How the Research was Carried Out

“…The relationship between academic visibility and the intensity of relations with industry are complex. While Mansfield (1995) establishes the existence of profound synergy between expertise for industry and academic research, Joly and Mangematin (1996) show that relationships between public research laboratories and industry are based on different logics, depending on the laboratory and the aims of those concerned. Not all types of relationship make it possible to benefit from effects of synergy between activities governed by research contracts and academic research.…”

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

“…Triple helix (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000;Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996), third mission (Philpott et al, 2010) or university-industry relationships (Joly and Mangematin, 1996): each expression details how university missions have expanded to incorporate and combine commercial and managerial environments. Such changes have meant that universities have established formal structures to support these activities and to engage with industry communities.…”

The governance of formal university–industry interactions: understanding the rationales for alternative models

“…Finally, when, as is most often the case, studies rely on data made available by university technology/knowledge transfer offices, they capture only the set of interactions managed directly by the university (see, e.g., Joly and Mangematin, 1996;Thursby et al, 2001). Policy often considers only statistics related to 'university and other higher education institutions', overlooking the fact that individual academic researchers may be active players in the interactions with industry.…”