IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v36y2012i3p655-677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics' perceptions of the barriers to working with industry

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Tartari
  • Ammon Salter
  • Pablo D'Este

Abstract

Although academics are under increasing pressure to engage industry in their research, they often find it difficult to do so. Conflicts with industry over the timing of disclosure and the choice of topics are common. Moreover, collaborations with industry may require academics to negotiate formal contracts about the ownership of intellectual property. To help understand the factors that might mitigate these conflicts, this paper examines how the professional and collaborative experiences of academics shape their perceptions of the barriers to industry collaboration. Using a rich dataset of UK academics, we find that perceived barriers to collaboration are lower for academics with industrial and collaborative experience and for those who trust their industry partners. However, for the transactional costs of industry engagement, we find entrepreneurial experience and the diversity of methods used to collaborate with industry increases the perceived barriers to collaboration. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Tartari & Ammon Salter & Pablo D'Este, 2012. "Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics' perceptions of the barriers to working with industry," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(3), pages 655-677.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:3:p:655-677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bes007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:3:p:655-677. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.