IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v29y2020i4p917-933..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taste for science, academic boundary spanning, and inventive performance of scientists and engineers in industry

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Arts
  • Reinhilde Veugelers

Abstract

Matching survey data on PhD scientists and engineers currently working in an R&D job in industry with publications and patents, we study the relation between their individual motives and the rate and nature of their inventive output. We find that individuals with a strong taste for science, that is motivated by intellectual challenge, autonomy, and contribution to society, create more novel and impactful patents in industry. These individuals are also more involved in academic boundary spanning, proxied by scientific publications co-authored with academic scientists, and this boundary spanning partially mediates the effect of taste for science on impactful inventive output. In contrast, individuals with a strong taste for salary and career collaborate less with academic scientists, fully mediating the negative effect of taste for salary and career on impactful inventive output.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2020. "Taste for science, academic boundary spanning, and inventive performance of scientists and engineers in industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(4), pages 917-933.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:29:y:2020:i:4:p:917-933.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtaa013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    3. Nicola Lacetera, 2009. "Different Missions and Commitment Power in R&D Organizations: Theory and Evidence on Industry-University Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 565-582, June.
    4. Ejsing, Ann-Kathrine & Kaiser, Ulrich & Kongsted, Hans Christian & Laursen, Keld, 2013. "The Role of University Scientist Mobility for Industrial Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 7470, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2012. "Individual preferences, organization, and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 550-570.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    7. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno & Arts, Sam, 2012. "Mind the gap: capturing value from basic research: boundary crossing inventors and partnerships," CEPR Discussion Papers 9215, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    9. Laudeline Auriol & Martin Schaaper & Bernard Felix, 2012. "Mapping Careers and Mobility of Doctorate Holders: Draft Guidelines, Model Questionnaire and Indicators – Third Edition," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2012/7, OECD Publishing.
    10. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    13. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Christopher C. Liu & Toby E. Stuart, 2010. "Boundary spanning in a for-profit research lab: An exploration of the interface between commerce and academe," Harvard Business School Working Papers 11-012, Harvard Business School.
    15. Roach, Michael & Sauermann, Henry, 2010. "A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 422-434, April.
    16. Lazear, Edward P, 1997. "Incentives in Basic Research," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 167-197, January.
    17. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    18. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers & Pluvia Zuniga, 2008. "In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(4), pages 611-646, August.
    19. Henry Sauermann & Wesley M. Cohen, 2010. "What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2134-2153, December.
    20. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    21. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    22. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    23. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    24. Rajshree Agarwal & Atsushi Ohyama, 2013. "Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 950-970, April.
    25. 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.
    26. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    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. Plantec, Quentin & Cabanes, Benjamin & le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Early-career academic engagement in university–industry collaborative PhDs: Research orientation and project performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    2. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Another way to get the Nobel Prize: the role of the industry in the emergence of new scientific breakthroughs," Post-Print halshs-03278662, HAL.
    5. Lawson, Cornelia & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2024. "Miss or match? The impact of PhD training on job market satisfaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    6. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    7. Sajad Ashouri & Anne-Laure Mention & Kosmas X. Smyrnios, 2021. "Anticipation and analysis of industry convergence using patent-level indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5727-5758, July.
    8. Arts, Sam & Hou, Jianan & Gomez, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).

    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. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    2. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    4. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ann-Kathrine Ejsing & Ulrich Kaiser & Hans Christian Kongsted & Keld Laursen, 2013. "The Role of University Scientist Mobility for Industrial Innovation," Working Papers 332, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    6. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    7. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    8. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    9. Alfonso Gambardella & Pooyan Khashabi & Claudio Panico, 2020. "Managing Autonomy in Industrial Research and Development: A Project-Level Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 165-181, January.
    10. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    11. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    12. Hanne Peeters & Julie Callaert & Bart Looy, 2020. "Do firms profit from involving academics when developing technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 494-521, April.
    13. Henry Sauermann, 2017. "Fire in the Belly? Employee Motives and Innovative Performance in Startups versus Established Firms," NBER Working Papers 23099, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. 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.
    15. Liu, Christopher C. & Stuart, Toby, 2014. "Positions and rewards: The allocation of resources within a science-based entrepreneurial firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1134-1143.
    16. Benjamin Balsmeier & Maikel Pellens, 2016. "How much does it cost to be a scientist?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 469-505, June.
    17. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    18. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    19. Hsu, David H. & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Zhao, Qifeng, 2021. "Rich on paper? Chinese firms’ academic publications, patents, and market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    21. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Flying the nest: How the home department shapes researchers’ career paths," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201409, University of Turin.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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:indcch:v:29:y:2020:i:4:p:917-933.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.