IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i10p1884-1891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry

Author

Listed:
  • Perkmann, Markus
  • Walsh, Kathryn

Abstract

We present a conceptual framework of academic consulting and explore its impacts on universities and the benefits to innovating firms. We distinguish between three types of academic consulting: opportunity-driven, commercialization-driven and research-driven. Exploring the implications of these different types, first, we postulate that consulting has limited impact on biasing academic research towards more 'applied' themes. Secondly, while we expect research-driven consulting activities to be positively associated with research productivity, opportunity-driven consulting will have a negative impact. Thirdly, we differentiate between different functions of academic consulting for different types of firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Perkmann, Markus & Walsh, Kathryn, 2008. "Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1884-1891, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:10:p:1884-1891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00157-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Benoît Godin & Yves Gingras, 2000. "Impact of collaborative research on academic science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 65-73, February.
    2. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jeff S. Armstrong, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    3. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    4. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    5. Nelson, Richard R., 2004. "The market economy, and the scientific commons," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 455-471, April.
    6. Thursby, Jerry & Fuller, Anne W. & Thursby, Marie, 2009. "US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, February.
    7. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Smeby, Jens-Christian, 2005. "Industry funding and university professors' research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 932-950, August.
    8. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    9. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    10. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    11. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    12. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, May.
    13. Faulkner, Wendy & Senker, Jacqueline, 1994. "Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 673-695, November.
    14. Thursby, Jerry G & Jensen, Richard & Thursby, Marie C, 2001. "Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 59-72, January.
    15. Gibbons, Michael & Johnston, Ron, 1974. "The roles of science in technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 220-242, November.
    16. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2004. "Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(2), pages 162-178, April.
    17. Acs, Zoltán J & Audretsch, David B & Braunerhjelm, Pontus & Carlsson, Bo, 2004. "The Missing Link: The Knowledge Filter and Entrepreneurship in Endogenous Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 4783, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    19. Ulrich Schmoch, 1999. "Interaction of Universities and Industrial Enterprises in Germany and the United States-A Comparison," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 51-68.
    20. Behrens, Teresa R. & Gray, Denis O., 2001. "Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 179-199, February.
    21. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    22. Van Looy, Bart & Ranga, Marina & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad & Zimmermann, Edwin, 2004. "Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-441, April.
    23. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    24. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    25. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    26. Santoro, Michael D. & Chakrabarti, Alok K., 2002. "Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1163-1180, September.
    27. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Armstrong, Jeff, 1998. "Geographically Localized Knowledge: Spillovers or Markets?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(1), pages 65-86, January.
    28. Bollinger, Lynn & Hope, Katherine & Utterback, James M., 1983. "A review of literature and hypotheses on new technology-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, February.
    29. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    30. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    31. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters,in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:37:y:2008:i:10:p:1884-1891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.