IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i3p54-d251054.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Scientific Knowledge Dissemination for Scientists—A Value Capture Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Beck

    (Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, Open Innovation in Science Center (LBG OIS Center), Nußdorfer Str. 64, 1090 Vienna, Austria
    Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14A, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Maral Mahdad

    (Department for Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Karin Beukel

    (Department for Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Marion Poetz

    (Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, Open Innovation in Science Center (LBG OIS Center), Nußdorfer Str. 64, 1090 Vienna, Austria
    Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14A, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

Abstract

Scientific knowledge dissemination is necessary to collaboratively develop solutions to today’s challenges among scientific, public, and commercial actors. Building on this, recent concepts (e.g., Third Mission) discuss the role and value of different dissemination mechanisms for increasing societal impact. However, the value individual scientists receive in exchange for disseminating knowledge differs across these mechanisms, which, consequently, affects their selection. So far, value capture mechanisms have mainly been described as appropriating monetary rewards in exchange for scientists’ knowledge (e.g., patenting). However, most knowledge dissemination activities in science do not directly result in capturing monetary value (e.g., social engagement). By taking a value capture perspective, this article conceptualizes and explores how individual scientists capture value from disseminating their knowledge. Results from our qualitative study indicate that scientists’ value capture consists of a measureable objective part (e.g., career promotion) and a still unconsidered subjective part (e.g., social recognition), which is perceived as valuable due to scientists’ needs. By advancing our understanding of value capture in science, scientists’ selection of dissemination mechanisms can be incentivized to increase both the value captured by themselves and society. Hence, policy makers and university managers can contribute to overcoming institutional and ecosystem barriers and foster scientists’ engagement with society.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Beck & Maral Mahdad & Karin Beukel & Marion Poetz, 2019. "The Value of Scientific Knowledge Dissemination for Scientists—A Value Capture Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:3:p:54-:d:251054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/54/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/54/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gergana Markova & Cameron Ford, 2011. "Is money the panacea? Rewards for knowledge workers," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 60(8), pages 813-823, November.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    4. Fiona Murray & Siobhán O'Mahony, 2007. "Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 1006-1021, December.
    5. Jeffrey L. Furman & Scott Stern, 2011. "Climbing atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1933-1963, August.
    6. Elias G. Carayannis & David F.J. Campbell, 2010. "Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation and the Environment Relate To Each Other? : A Proposed Framework for a Trans-disciplinary Analysis of Sustainable Dev," International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), IGI Global, vol. 1(1), pages 41-69, January.
    7. Dedrick, Jason & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2015. "Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1615-1628.
    8. Bruno S. Frey & Susanne Neckermann, 2008. "Academics Appreciate Awards. A New Aspect of Incentives in Research," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-32, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Godin, Benoit & Gingras, Yves, 2000. "The place of universities in the system of knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 273-278, February.
    10. Alice Lam, 2015. "Academic Scientists and Knowledge Commercialization: Self-Determination and Diverse Motivations," Springer Books, in: Isabell M. Welpe & Jutta Wollersheim & Stefanie Ringelhan & Margit Osterloh (ed.), Incentives and Performance, edition 127, pages 173-187, Springer.
    11. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    12. 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.
    13. Bryan Campbell, 2010. "Environment And Sustainable Development," CIRANO Papers 2010n-04speciala, CIRANO.
    14. Bozeman, Barry & Rogers, Juan D., 2002. "A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 769-794, July.
    15. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    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. Petra Moog & Christian Soost, 2022. "Does team diversity really matter? The connection between networks, access to financial resources, and performance in the context of university spin-offs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 323-351, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Martin Jaekel & Arto Wallin & Minna Isomursu, 2015. "Guiding Networked Innovation Projects Towards Commercial Success—a Case Study of an EU Innovation Programme with Implications for Targeted Open Innovation," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(3), pages 625-639, September.
    3. Sándor Huszár & Szabolcs Prónay & Norbert Buzás, 2016. "Examining the differences between the motivations of traditional and entrepreneurial scientists," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Clayton, Paige & Lanahan, Lauren & Nelson, Andrew, 2022. "Dissecting diffusion: Tracing the plurality of factors that shape knowledge diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Lars Jonsson & Enrico Baraldi & Lars-Eric Larsson & Petter Forsberg & Kristofer Severinsson, 2015. "Targeting Academic Engagement in Open Innovation: Tools, Effects and Challenges for University Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(3), pages 522-550, September.
    6. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    7. Enas Alhassan & R. Sandra Schillo & Margaret A. Lemay & Fred Pries, 2019. "Research Outputs as Vehicles of Knowledge Exchange in a Quintuple Helix Context: The Case of Biofuels Research Outputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 958-973, September.
    8. Kenny Ching & Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2019. "Control versus execution: endogenous appropriability and entrepreneurial strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 389-408.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    10. Andrade, Eron Passos & Pereira, Jadiel dos Santos & Rocha, Angela Machado & Nascimento, Marcio Luis Ferreira, 2022. "An exploratory analysis of Brazilian universities in the technological innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Zhu, Guilong & Mu, Rongping, 2020. "Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 94.
    12. Anna Sworowska-Baranowska, 2021. "Science-Nonscience Research Partnership in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 96-113.
    13. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    15. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    17. Xiaoran Zheng & Yuzhuo Cai, 2022. "Transforming Innovation Systems into Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of Public Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.
    18. Conti, Raffaele & Gambardella, Alfonso & Novelli, Elena, 2018. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 12782, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Joly, P. B. & Mangematin, V., 1996. "Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 901-922, September.
    20. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1997. "Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 303-315, October.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:3:p:54-:d:251054. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.