IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i1p30-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity

Author

Listed:
  • Bishop, Kate
  • D'Este, Pablo
  • Neely, Andy

Abstract

This paper examines the various methods through which firms benefit from interactions with universities, arguing that such benefits are instrumental in nurturing the multiple facets of a firm's absorptive capacity. We bring together data collected from a survey of UK firms that collaborated with universities, and firm-level data on past partnerships with universities. The results show that benefits from interactions with universities are multifaceted, including enhancement of the firm's explorative and exploitative capabilities. Results also indicate that firms' R&D commitments, geographical proximity to and research quality of university partners have a distinct impact on the different types of benefits from interactions with universities. We find geographical proximity is crucial for assessing problem-solving as an important benefit, while interactions with top quality universities have a positive influence on the benefits associated with firms' downstream activities. We discuss the implications of these findings for research and policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Bishop, Kate & D'Este, Pablo & Neely, Andy, 2011. "Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 30-40, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:1:p:30-40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00199-X
    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. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    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. Bercovitz, Janet E.L. & Feldman, Maryann P., 2007. "Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 930-948, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    7. Laura Abramovsky & Rupert Harrison & Helen Simpson, 2007. "University Research and the Location of Business R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(519), pages 114-141, March.
    8. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2004. "Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 559-580.
    10. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    11. Tobias Schmidt, 2010. "Absorptive capacity-one size fits all? A firm-level analysis of absorptive capacity for different kinds of knowledge," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 1-18.
    12. Gibbons, Michael & Johnston, Ron, 1974. "The roles of science in technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 220-242, November.
    13. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    18. George, Gerard & Zahra, Shaker A. & Wood, D. Jr., 2002. "The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 577-609, October.
    19. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    20. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    3. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    4. 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.
    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. Giuliani, Elisa & Arza, Valeria, 2009. "What drives the formation of 'valuable' university-industry linkages?: Insights from the wine industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 906-921, July.
    7. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Aschhoff, Birgit & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2008. "Successful Patterns of Scientific Knowledge Sourcing: Mix and Match," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-033 [rev.], ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    10. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    11. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    12. Ludovic Dibiaggio & Benjamin Montmartin & Lionel Nesta, 2018. "Regional Alignement and Productivity Growth," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2018-25, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    13. Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Business Science Links For a New Growth Path. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 107," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58413, April.
    14. Yongli Tang & Kazuyuki Motohashi & Xinyue Hu & Angeles Montoro-Sanchez, 2020. "University-industry interaction and product innovation performance of Guangdong manufacturing firms: the roles of regional proximity and research quality of universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 578-618, April.
    15. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/32ctbi8fbq8j5aom2j69qam6tf is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Grimpe, Christoph & Hussinger, Katrin, 2008. "Formal and Informal Technology Transfer from Academia to Industry: Complementarity Effects and Innovation Performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-080, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. 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.
    18. Claudia Fuentes & Gabriela Dutrénit, 2016. "Geographic proximity and university–industry interaction: the case of Mexico," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 329-348, April.
    19. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    20. Le, Thanh & Pham, Hanh & Mai, Sau & Vu, Ngoc, 2022. "Frontier academic research, industrial R&D and technological progress: The case of OECD countries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    21. Fernández-Esquinas, Manuel & Pinto, Hugo & Yruela, Manuel Pérez & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2016. "Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 266-279.

    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:40:y:2011:i:1:p:30-40. 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.