Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research
Since the late nineteenth century, universities have been regarded as useful sources of technological development to stimulate economic activity. Therefore, many governments have encouraged research collaborations between universities and industries. A consequence of such collaboration in Korea, however, is that university researchers have difficulty claiming ownership of their technological developments. Typical contracts used in academia in Korea have biased benefits for industries. Research and development contract agreements that decrease negotiation efforts between the sectors of academia and industry are essential to increase the efficiency of industry-academia collaborations. In order to determine an optimal contract design, we use conjoint analysis of four attributes, including policies of ownership and compensation, indemnity responsibility, patent application and maintenance fees, and publication restrictions. The resulting preferences take into account the perspectives of both industry and academia. We expect our approach to contribute to increasingly healthy collaborations between industry and academia, which in turn will benefit industrial competition as well as the Korean economy. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 37 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/10961/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
- Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009.
"Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research,"
Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
- Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2007. "Heterogeneity of Patenting Activity and Its Implications for Scientific Research," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-028, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo & Matt, Mireille, 2006. "Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 309-323, March.
- Lee, Yong S, 2000. "The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 111-133, June.
- Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Onder Nomaler & Bart Verspagen, 2010. "University IPRs and knowledge transfer: is university ownership more efficient?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 627-648.
- Schmiemann, Manfred & Durvy, Jean-Noel, 2003. "New Approaches to Technology Transfer from Publicly Funded Research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 9-15, January.
- Dirk Libaers & Martin Meyer & Aldo Geuna, 2006. "The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 443-450, July.
- Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Brewer, Marilynn B, 1998. "Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 290-306, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:37:y:2012:i:4:p:532-549. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.