IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i3s0048733321002481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Choi, Haneul
  • Yoon, Hyunjung
  • Siegel, Donald
  • Waldman, David A.
  • Mitchell, Marie S.

Abstract

While there are numerous studies of university technology transfer, there have been relatively few studies of technology transfer at federal labs. Moreover, studies of university technology transfer have focused on faculty, not post-doctoral scientists. They have also ignored identity and sensemaking theories in organizational behavior, which are relevant in the context of technology transfer. We fill these gaps by examining differences between university post-doctoral scientists and federal lab post-doctoral scientists, in terms of how they engage in technology transfer. Our qualitative analysis is based on extensive interviews of post-doctoral scientists and their supervisors/principal investigators (PIs) at two major research universities and four large federal labs. We find that federal lab scientists are more influenced by mission-driven research and their sense of public service, as compared to university scientists who are motivated more by curiosity-driven research. These motivational differences may constitute significant barriers to technology transfer in federal labs. As compared to their university counterparts, federal lab scientists appear to experience more cognitive dissonance in pursuing commercialization of their research and have more sophisticated resolution strategies for dealing with such dissonance. We also find that PIs at federal labs are not highly incentivized to engage in technology transfer. We discuss additional research needs, as well as the managerial and training implications of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Choi, Haneul & Yoon, Hyunjung & Siegel, Donald & Waldman, David A. & Mitchell, Marie S., 2022. "Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:3:s0048733321002481
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321002481
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104456?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    2. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    3. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    4. Ed Clark & Mike Geppert, 2011. "Subsidiary Integration as Identity Construction and Institution Building: A Political Sensemaking Approach," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 395-416, March.
    5. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    6. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-320, April.
    7. Conti, Annamaria & Liu, Christopher C., 2015. "Bringing the lab back in: Personnel composition and scientific output at the MIT Department of Biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1633-1644.
    8. Frank T. Rothaermel & Shanti D. Agung & Lin Jiang, 2007. "University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 691-791, August.
    9. Jaffe, Adam B & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 167-198, Spring.
    10. Daniela Bolzani & Federico Munari & Einar Rasmussen & Laura Toschi, 2021. "Technology transfer offices as providers of science and technology entrepreneurship education," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 335-365, April.
    11. Mian, Sarfraz A., 1996. "Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 325-335, May.
    12. Donald S. Siegel & Maribel Guerrero, 2021. "The Impact of Quarantines, Lockdowns, and ‘Reopenings’ on the Commercialization of Science: Micro and Macro Issues," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1389-1394, July.
    13. Mike Wright & Donald S. Siegel & Philippe Mustar, 2017. "An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 909-922, August.
    14. Gideon D. Markman & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2008. "Research and Technology Commercialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1401-1423, December.
    15. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    16. Sonali K. Shah & Kevin G. Corley, 2006. "Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative–Qualitative Divide," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1821-1835, December.
    17. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    18. Glenna, Leland L. & Welsh, Rick & Ervin, David & Lacy, William B. & Biscotti, Dina, 2011. "Commercial science, scientists' values, and university biotechnology research agendas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 957-968, September.
    19. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2008. "Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 69-89, February.
    20. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike (ed.), 2015. "The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226178349, September.
    21. Phan, Phillip H. & Siegel, Donald S., 2006. "The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 77-144, November.
    22. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    23. Biancani, Susan & Dahlander, Linus & McFarland, Daniel A. & Smith, Sanne, 2018. "Superstars in the making? The broad effects of interdisciplinary centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 543-557.
    24. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    25. Welsh, Rick & Glenna, Leland & Lacy, William & Biscotti, Dina, 2008. "Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1854-1864, December.
    26. Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty & Bruce A. Banks, 1998. "Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 183-205, June.
    27. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    28. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2019. "The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1416-1426, October.
    29. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann & Feller, Irwin & Burton, Richard, 2001. "Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 21-35, January.
    30. Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2007. "Intellectual property: the assessment," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 529-540, Winter.
    31. David Audretsch & Rosa Caiazza, 2016. "Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: cross-national analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1247-1259, December.
    32. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    33. Baldini, Nicola, 2009. "Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1217-1224, October.
    34. Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
    35. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    36. Waldman, David A. & Putnam, Linda L. & Miron-Spektor, Ella & Siegel, Donald, 2019. "The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-6.
    37. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shin, Seungryul Ryan & Lee, Jisoo & Jung, Yura Rosemary & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The diffusion of scientific discoveries in government laboratories: The role of patents filed by government scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    2. Guerrero, Maribel & Pugh, Rhiannon, 2022. "Entrepreneurial universities’ metamorphosis: Encountering technological and emotional disruptions in the COVID-19 ERA," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Siegel, Donald & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Jennings, P. Devereaux & Xue, Lan, 2023. "Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    4. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    5. Donald S. Siegel, 2022. "Two Cheers for RRBM, Pasteur’s Quadrant, and an Application of RRBM to the Commercialization of Science and Technology Transfer," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1643-1650, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    2. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    3. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    4. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    5. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    6. Christopher S. Hayter & Andrew J. Nelson & Stephanie Zayed & Alan C. O’Connor, 2018. "Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1039-1082, August.
    7. Fini, Riccardo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Meoli, Azzurra, 2020. "The effectiveness of university regulations to foster science-based entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    8. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly, 2018. "Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 545-557, June.
    9. Siegel, Donald & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Jennings, P. Devereaux & Xue, Lan, 2023. "Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    10. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    11. Charlotta Dahlborg & Danielle Lewensohn & Rickard Danell & Carl Johan Sundberg, 2017. "To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 538-563, June.
    12. Alejandro Bengoa & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio, 2021. "A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1514-1550, October.
    13. Igors Skute & Kasia Zalewska-Kurek & Isabella Hatak & Petra Weerd-Nederhof, 2019. "Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 916-947, June.
    14. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    15. Würmseher, Martin, 2017. "To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist's individual needs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-17.
    16. Roncancio-Marin, Jason & Dentchev, Nikolay & Guerrero, Maribel & Díaz-González, Abel & Crispeels, Thomas, 2022. "University-Industry joint undertakings with high societal impact: A micro-processes approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    17. Belitski, Maksim & Aginskaja, Anna & Marozau, Radzivon, 2019. "Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 601-615.
    18. William R. Meek & Matthew S. Wood, 2016. "Navigating a Sea of Change: Identity Misalignment and Adaptation in Academic Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1093-1120, September.
    19. O’Kane, Conor, 2018. "Technology transfer executives' backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 64-77.
    20. Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin & Will Geoghegan & Ciara Fitzgerald, 2015. "University Technology Transfer offices : the search for identity to build legimacy," Post-Print hal-01072998, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:3:s0048733321002481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.