IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v45y2020i2d10.1007_s10961-018-9702-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Borge

    (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
    Bioeconomy Science Center (BioSC), c/o Research Center Juelich)

  • Stefanie Bröring

    (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
    Bioeconomy Science Center (BioSC), c/o Research Center Juelich)

Abstract

Technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas such as the bioeconomy is strongly challenged. The related challenges are attained to the differences in perceptions, objectives, values and motivations between academic scientists and firms stemming from different disciplines and industries. Group concept mapping, an exploratory and bottom-up participatory method that brings together stakeholders to represent their collective perceptions, was therefore applied to investigate challenges in technology transfer. Using this approach, this study is able to offer the first overview of factors affecting technology transfer in the bioeconomy through the aggregate representation of the perceptions of different stakeholder groups (i.e. academic scientists, technology transfer facilitators, and firms/entrepreneurs). These factors are visualized in form of maps by means of multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses. Furthermore, a quantitative ranking of the factors is used to demonstrate the degree to which the importance of the perceived factors differs across stakeholder groups. Factors related to interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations between academics and firms as well as those tied to financial issues or consumer acceptance are assigned the highest level of relative importance. However, these factors are also characterized by the lowest level of relative coherence across key stakeholders. Finally, managerial and policy recommendations for cultivating successful technology transfer in the context of other interdisciplinary and emerging knowledge areas are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10961-018-9702-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-018-9702-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-018-9702-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-018-9702-4?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. Langford, Cooper H. & Hall, Jeremy & Josty, Peter & Matos, Stelvia & Jacobson, Astrid, 2006. "Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1586-1598, December.
    2. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss & Koen H. Heimeriks & Tammy L. Madsen, 2012. "Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1351-1374, December.
    3. David Audretsch & Erik Lehmann & Mike Wright, 2014. "Technology transfer in a global economy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 301-312, June.
    4. Rosas, Scott R. & Kane, Mary, 2012. "Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 236-245.
    5. 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.
    6. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Chris Young, 2017. "A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 923-956, August.
    7. Joan Costa-Font & Elias Mossialos, 2006. "The Public as a Limit to Technology Transfer: The Influence of Knowledge and Beliefs in Attitudes towards Biotechnology in the UK," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 629-645, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    10. Nicole Lisa Klenk & Gordon M. Hickey, 2012. "Improving the social robustness of research networks for sustainable natural resource management: Results of a Delphi study in Canada," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 357-372, April.
    11. Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
    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. Harrison, Jeffrey S. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2013. "Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 97-124, January.
    14. Mariusz Maciejczak, 2017. "Bioeconomy as a Complex Adaptive System of Sustainable Development," Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 2(2), pages 7-10, January.
    15. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    16. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. 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.
    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. Mónica Duque-Acevedo & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & Natalia Yakovleva & Francisco Camacho-Ferre, 2020. "Analysis of the Circular Economic Production Models and Their Approach in Agriculture and Agricultural Waste Biomass Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    2. Andreas Kuckertz, 2020. "Bioeconomy Transformation Strategies Worldwide Require Stronger Focus on Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-8, April.

    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. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    2. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    3. Giorgio Calcagnini & Germana Giombini & Paolo Liberati & Giuseppe Travaglini, 2019. "Technology transfer with search intensity and project advertising," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1529-1546, October.
    4. Heeyong Noh & Sungjoo Lee, 2019. "Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: a quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 700-740, June.
    5. Kadigia Faccin & Christle Beer & Bibiana Volkmer Martins & Grabriela Zanandrea & Neta Kela & Corne Schutte, 2022. "What really matters for TTOs efficiency? An analysis of TTOs in developed and developing economies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1135-1161, August.
    6. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly, 2019. "Roles and Responsibilities of Project Coordinators: A Contingency Model for Project Coordinator Effectiveness," JRC Research Reports JRC117576, Joint Research Centre.
    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. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Laura González-Salmerón & Pedro Marques, 2021. "Fiction lagging behind or non-fiction defending the indefensible? University–industry (et al.) interaction in science fiction," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1889-1916, December.
    9. Thomas, V.J. & Bliemel, Martin & Shippam, Cynthia & Maine, Elicia, 2020. "Endowing university spin-offs pre-formation: Entrepreneurial capabilities for scientist-entrepreneurs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    10. Takata, Megumi & Nakagawa, Koichi & Yoshida, Mari & Matsuyuki, Terumasa & Matsuhashi, Toshihiko & Kato, Kosuke & Stevens, Ashley J., 2022. "Nurturing entrepreneurs: How do technology transfer professionals bridge the Valley of Death in Japan?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Chris Young, 2017. "A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 923-956, August.
    12. Fernando Alexandre & Hélder Costa & Ana Paula Faria & Miguel Portela, 2022. "Enhancing University–Industry collaboration: the role of intermediary organizations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1584-1611, 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. Kalantaridis, Christos & Küttim, Merle & Govind, Madhav & Sousa, Cristina, 2017. "How to commercialise university-generated knowledge internationally? A comparative analysis of contingent institutional conditions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 35-44.
    15. Erik E. Lehmann & Matthias Menter, 2018. "Public cluster policy and performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 558-592, June.
    16. S. A. M. Dolmans & B. Walrave & S. Read & N. Stijn, 2022. "Knowledge transfer to industry: how academic researchers learn to become boundary spanners during academic engagement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1422-1450, October.
    17. 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).
    18. Adegbile, Abiodun Samuel & Sarpong, David & Kolade, Oluwaseun, 2021. "Environments for Joint University-Industry Laboratories (JUIL): Micro-level dimensions and research implications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. David A. Kirby & Hala H. El Hadidi, 2019. "University technology transfer efficiency in a factor driven economy: the need for a coherent policy in Egypt," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1367-1395, October.
    20. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology transfer; Emerging knowledge areas; Stakeholder theory; Microfoundations; Group concept mapping; Bioeconomy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10961-018-9702-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.