Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: motivations and barriers

Abstract

The behavior of academic researchers who engage in cooperation with industrial partners has already been the subject of considerable research. A lack of understanding exists regarding the motivations of scientific research groups to engage in cooperation with other types of external non-academic organizations and the perceived barriers that may inhibit this activity. In this paper we analyse the motivations and perceptions of risks that shape scientific research groups' cooperation with industry and government partners. We find that motivations to cooperate are partly dependent on the type of partner organization involved, with advancing research goals mainly acting as an inducement to cooperate with government agencies, while searching for opportunities to apply knowledge motivates partnerships with firms. We also find that the majority of research groups cooperate with both firms and government, with their major motivation being to apply their knowledge. Among research groups that only cooperate with firms, interaction effects between motivations influence the likelihood of cooperation. Research groups do not consider risk to scientific autonomy a barrier to cooperating with firms, while risk to scientific credibility inhibits cooperation independently of the type of external partner. However, being motivated to advance research can reduce the effect of perceived barriers, independent of the type of partner organisation.

The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists

“…A number of studies have thus considered a broader set of KT activities, focusing on academics' propensity to undertake them (Ramos-Vielba et al, 2016;Olmos-Peñuela et al, 2014;D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;Landry et al, 2010;Grimpe and Fier, 2010;D'Este and Patel, 2007;Link et al, 2007) and their relative effects (Landry et al, 2007;D'Este et al, 2013;Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2014). For example, D' Este and Patel (2007) are among the first to include contract research and consulting activity in the analysis of KT activities.…”

“…Only recently have a number of contributions considered a broader set of KT activities and focused on the motivation of academics to perform these activities (Ramos-Vielba et al, 2016;Olmos-Peñuela et al, 2014;D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;D'Este and Patel, 2007;Link et al, 2007), their complementarities (Landry et al, 2010) and their effects on effective KT (Landry et al, 2007). This stream of literature has shown that academic engagement is mainly influenced by individual characteristics (Link and Scott, 2012), organisational and institutional factors (Moog et al, 2015;Ding and Choi, 2011;Jensen and Thursby, 2001), the scientific discipline of the academic (Bekkers and Bodas Freitas, 2008) and a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: fundraising, access to knowledge and learning (D'Este and Perkmann, 2011;Lam, 2011).…”

Scale of Results in Research Groups

“…RG are responsible for promoting relations between education, research and extension (Backes, Prado, Lino, Ferraz, Reibnitz, & Canever, 2012;Riquelme & Langer, 2010), considering the needs of funding agencies (Pereira & Andrade, 2008) and the practical use of theoretical knowledge (Araujo, Mascarini, Santos, & Costa, 2015;Caliari, Santos, & Mendes, 2016;Ramos-Vielba, Sánchez-Barrioluengo, & Woolley, 2016;Riquelme & Langer, 2010).…”

“…The same occurred when the group developed software for its peers (presumably because receiving a new product is not necessarily creating new technology), regarding technical consultancy activities (it may represent a specialised service but not necessarily a relationship between science and technology) or when the peer supplied materials and inputs for the group (it may represent a business relationship, not a scientific and technological one). Ramos-Vielba et al (2016) studied motivation and obstacles to cooperation between scientific investigation groups, companies and government agencies in Spain addressing characteristics of the research group; relations between the group and other agents in the innovation system; cooperation with companies; and the regional context for intersectoral cooperation with non-academic organizations. The findings indicated that most RG cooperate with both companies and government.…”

“…In the consulted literature, Distal Results of External Repercussion covers aspects such as recognition and visibility of participants and RG (Odelius et al, 2011); technical services and specialised consultancy (Restrepo & Villegas, 2007); and creation and mobilization of research networks and interinstitutional partnerships (Harvey et al 2002;Haythornthwaite, 2006;Odelius et al, 2011;Ramos-Vielba et al, 2016).…”