DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Are scientific capacities and industrial funding critical for universities' knowledgetransfer activities? - A case study of South Korea

  • Kwon, Ki-Seok (Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI))
  • Published : 2011.04.30

Abstract

This study focuses on the knowledge-transfer activities of Korean universities at the organisational level. Considering the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Korean university system, as well as those of universities in other recently developed Asian countries experienced a rapid economic catch-up, this study is more interested in the relationship between the scientific capacity of universities and their knowledge-transfer activities, and between universities' funding sources and their knowledge-transfer activities. According to the results of the study, scientific capacity in a specific discipline, such as engineering, is important for universities in both other developed countries and in Korea, while scientific capacity (regardless of the discipline) is apparently not important for Korean universities, particularly in the area of domestic publication. Furthermore, this result supports the proposition suggested that strategically chosen industrial sectors in rapid catch-up countries are closely related to the scientific capacity of universities in specific disciplines. In terms of funding sources, the amount of funding from industry is strongly related to the knowledge-transfer activities of universities, whereas the proportion of funding from industry relative to the total amount of funding is not as significantly related to knowledge-transfer activities. The failure to identify a significant relationship between central government funding and knowledge-transfer activities may be due to less strict requirements for commercialisation in central government R&D programmes. Otherwise, central government funding fails to generate meaningful knowledge-transfer activities in universities.

Keywords

References

  1. Adams, J. and Griliches, Z. (1996). Measuring science: an exploration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 93, pp.12644-12670.
  2. Adams, J. and Griliches, Z. (1998). Research Productivity in a System of Universities. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, No. 49/50, Economie et Econometrie de l'innovation / The Economics and Econometrics of Innovation (Jan. - Jun., 1998), pp. 127-162.
  3. Albuquerque, E. M. (2001). Scientific Infrastructure and Catching-Up Process: Notes about a Relationship Illustrated by Science and Technology Statistics. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 55 (4), pp.545-566. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71402001000400005
  4. Altbach, P. G. (1989). Higher Education and Scientific Development: The Promise of Newly Industrializing Countries. In Altbach et al. (eds), Scientific Development and Higher Education, New York: Praeger, pp.3-29.
  5. Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkingshaw, J. and D'Este, P. (2007). When does university research get commercialised? Institutional and individual level predictors of commercial outputs from research-council funded projects, DRUID Summer Conference 2007, Copenhagen, CBS, Denmark, 18-20 June, 2007.
  6. Arundel, A. and Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 13, pp.559-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859092000234311
  7. Arundel, A., Van De Paal, G. and Soete, L. (1995). Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. PACE report, Maastricht, University of Limbourg.
  8. Bak, Hee-Je (2006). The Characteristics of Korean Universities' Research in terms of Structural Change: Analysis on the R&D Expenditure after the 1980s. Conference of Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies 2006, 30th June, 2006.
  9. Brooks, H. and Randazzese, L.P. (1999). University-industry relations: the next four years and beyond. In Branscomb, L.M. and Keller, J.H. (eds). Investing in Innovation: Creating an Innovation Policy that works. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 361-399.
  10. Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15 (2), pp.119-138.
  11. Carlsson, B. and Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology Transfer in the United States. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, pp.199-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-002-0105-0
  12. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. and Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and nonparametric evidence. Research Policy, 34 (3). pp.369-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007
  13. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. and Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, pp.1-23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
  14. Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, pp.31-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021626702728
  15. De Campos, A. (2006). University-industry links in late-industrializing countries: a study of Unilever Brazil. DPhil Dissertation. University of Sussex, Brighton.
  16. De Campos, A. (2009). A review of the literature on university-industry links: towards an integrated approach in the study of influencing factors. Third Conference on Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies, Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brasilia, Brazil, UNU-MERIT, United Nations University and University of Maastricht. May 10-12, 2009.
  17. Di Gregorio, D. and Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more startups than others? Research Policy, 32, pp.209-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5
  18. Florida, R. and Cohen, W.M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In Branscomb, L.M., Kodama, F., Florida, R. (eds), Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, London, MIT Press, pp.589-610.
  19. Foltz, J., Barham, B. and Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness, 16(1), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(200024)16:1<82::AID-AGR7>3.0.CO;2-V
  20. Foltz, J., Kim, K. and Barham, B. (2001). A Dynamic Count Data Analysis of University AgBiotech Patents. Food Marketing Policy Center Research Report, 56.
  21. Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  22. Geuna, A. (1997). Allocation of Funds and Research Output: The Case of UK Universities. Revue d'Economie Industrielle, 79, pp. 143-162. https://doi.org/10.3406/rei.1997.1658
  23. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of economic literature, 28, pp. 1661-1707.
  24. Han, K. H. (2006). Opportunities and Constraints of Patternization of Universities in Science and Engineering. Korean Journal of Sociology, 40 (1), pp. 157-182.
  25. Hegde, D. (2005). Public and Private Universities: Unequal Sources of Regional Innovation? Economic Development Quarterly, Nov 2005; 19, pp.373-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242405280111
  26. Henderson, R., Jaffe A. B. and Manuel Trajtenberg (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80 (1), pp.119-127. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557221
  27. Hwang, H. and Yoon, J. (2003). The Accumulation Process of Basic Research Capability in Korea: Case Study on ERC/SRC. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 6 (1), pp.1-19.
  28. Hershberg, E., Nabeshima, K. and Yusuf, S. (2007). Opening the Ivory Tower to Business: University-Industry Linkages and the Development of Knowledge-Intensive Clusters in Asian Cities. World Development, 35 (6), pp.931-940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.006
  29. Intarakumnerd, P. et al. (2002). National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand. Research Policy, 31, pp.1445-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00074-4
  30. Kim, Cheol Hoi and Lee, Sang Don (2007). A study on Relationships between Performance of University-Industry Cooperations and Competency Factors of University. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 10 (4), pp.629-653.
  31. Kwon, K.-S. (2009a). Research and Knowledge-transfer Activities of Different Types of Korean Universities. The 6th Asialics, Hong Kong, 6-7 July 2009.
  32. Kwon, K.-S. (2009b). The relationship between academic research and knowledge transfer activities of universities: in case of Korea. Triple Helix Conference VII, Scotland, UK, 17-19 June 2009.
  33. Lach, S. and Schankerman M. (2003). Incentives and invention in universities. CEPR, London, Discussion paper 3916.
  34. Ljungberg, D., Johansson, M. and McKelvey, M. (2007). Does structure matter for science? The Matthew effect in the Swedish university sector. DRUID Summer Conference 2007, Copenhagen, CBS, Denmark, June 18-20, 2007.
  35. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, pp.773-776. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7
  36. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, pp.1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90080-A
  37. Mazzoleni, R. and Nelson, R. R. (2007). Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy, 36, pp.1512-1528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.007
  38. Nelson, R.R. (1986). Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings, 76 (2), pp.186-189.
  39. O'Shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Chevalier, A. and Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U. S. universities. Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp.994-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011
  40. 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, pp.1081-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00111-7
  41. Park, K., Kwon, K.-S., Eun, J., Han, D., Han, Y. and Han, S. (2007). Analysis on the impact of university-industry collaboration policy on research activities and patenting activities in Korean universities. Korea Research Foundation.
  42. Payne, A. A. and Siow, A (2003). Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research Output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3 (1), pp.1-22.
  43. Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effect of university characteristics on scientists' interaction with the private sector: an exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, pp.485-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9047-x
  44. Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing Academic Research: Resource Effects on Performance of University Technology Transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74 (1), pp.27-50.
  45. Powers, J. B. (2004). R&D Funding Sources and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial. Research in Higher Education, 45 (1), pp.1-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000010044.41663.a0
  46. Powers, J. B. and McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resources based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (3), pp.291-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.008
  47. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, Vol. 23, pp.323-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6
  48. Sapsalis, E., Van Looy, B., Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B., Callaert, J., and Debackere, K. (2006). Antecedents of patenting activity of European universities. Working Papers CEB 05-005.RS, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Solvay Business School, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB).
  49. Siegel, Donald, David Waldman and Albert Link (2003). Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. Research Policy. 32 (1), pp.27-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2
  50. Sine, W., Shane, S. and Di Gregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and university technology licensing. Management Science. 49 (4), pp.478-497. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.478.14416
  51. Sohn, B., Lee, B. and Jang, J. (2006). Current situation and prospect of Korean university-industry cooperation. Venture Creation Study, 1 (1), pp.31-32.
  52. Sohn, D.-W. and Kenney, M. (2007). Universities, Clusters, and Innovation Systems: The Case of Seoul, Korea. World Development, 35 (6), pp.991-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.008
  53. Song, Sung-Soo (2002). A study on the Characteristics of Science and Technology Policy in Korea. Korean Journal of Study of Science and Technology, 2 (1), pp.63-83.
  54. Thursby, Jerry and S. Kemp (2002). Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing. Research Policy, 31 (1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00160-8
  55. Varga, A. (1998). University Research and Regional Innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  56. Von Tunzelmann, G. N. (1995). Technology and industrial progress: the foundations of economic growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  57. Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P. and Singh, A. (2007). Towards an "Entrepreneurial University" Model to Support Knowledge-Based Economic Development: The Case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35 (6), pp.941-958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.007
  58. Eun, J-.H., Lee, K and Wu, G. (2006). Explaining the "University-run enterprise" in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy, 35, pp.1329-1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.008
  59. MEST (2008). National Project towards Building: World Class Universities 2008-2012, Korean Ministries of Education, Science and Technology.
  60. Lee, J.S. (2009). Korea's science & technology policy. In: Paper Presented at the AAAS Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
  61. Seung, J. and Kim, W. (2010), Post Catch-Up Innovation and Development of Creative Talent in Korea: Limitations and Challenges, STI Policy Review, 1(3), pp.39-51.
  62. Horta, H. (2010), The Role of the State in the Internationalization of Universities in Catching-up Countries: An Analysis of the Portuguese Higher Education System, Higher Education Policy, 23, pp.63-81. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2009.20
  63. Song, W. and Hwang, H-.R. (2006) The Technological Innovation Patterns of Component Suppliers in the Post Catching-up Period: The Case Study of Component Suppliers in Mobile Phone Industry, Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 9(3), pp. 435-450.

Cited by

  1. An interview with Loet Leydesdorff: the past, present, and future of the triple helix in the age of big data vol.99, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1123-4
  2. Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David F. J. Campbell vol.99, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1124-3
  3. The evolving role of collaboration in developing scientific capability: Evidence from Korean government-supported research institutes vol.42, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu041
  4. Measuring the dynamics of an innovation system using patent data: a case study of South Korea, 2001–2010 vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0045-4
  5. Decomposing the Triple-Helix synergy into the regional innovation systems of Norway: firm data and patent networks vol.51, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0344-z