IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v42y2015i5p632-645..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking under the street light: Limitations of mainstream technology transfer indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Kristjan Sigurdson
  • Creso M. Sá
  • Andrew Kretz

Abstract

This study investigates the use of university technology transfer reporting standards developed under the aegis of the US-based Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) in Canada. Given the importance to policy-makers internationally of improving the contributions of universities in transferring technology to industry, these indicators are regarded as critical to informing the policy debate. We analyze federal science and technology policy and identify how these metrics have influenced the framing of policy problems and alternatives. Next, a micro-level analysis of Canada’s largest research university unveils several major weaknesses of the survey. Our study points to the need for a more critical use of the AUTM licensing data in the Canadian policy debate, and provides recommendations on the future development of these indicators and their use in public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristjan Sigurdson & Creso M. Sá & Andrew Kretz, 2015. "Looking under the street light: Limitations of mainstream technology transfer indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 632-645.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:5:p:632-645.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scu080
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arundel, Anthony & Bordoy, Catalina, 2008. "Developing internationally comparable indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded research," MERIT Working Papers 2008-075, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Doutriaux, J. & Barker, M., 1995. "The University-Industry Relationship in Science and Technology," Gouvernement du Canada - Industrial Organization 11, Gouvernement du Canada - Industry Canada.
    3. repec:hrv:hksfac:5345878 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Gu, W. & Whewell, L., 1999. "University Research and Commercialization of Intellectual Property in Canada," Papers 21, Gouvernement du Canada - Industry Canada;Gouvernement du Canada - Industry Canada.
    5. Clark, William C. & Tomich, Thomas P. & Noordwijk, Meine van & Guston, David & Delia, Catacutan & Dickson, Nancy M. & McNie, Elizabeth, 2011. "Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)," Scholarly Articles 9774653, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pontus Braunerhjelm, 2007. "Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(9), pages 619-631, November.
    2. Metaxas, Theodore & Kallioras, Dimitris, 2013. "Small and medium-sized firms' competitiveness and territorial characteristics/assets: The cases of Bari, Varna and Thessaloniki," MPRA Paper 52446, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Xieyang Chen & Xingmin Shi, 2021. "Support or against coal mining? Host community perceptions of coal mining: a cluster analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6819-6837, May.
    4. Jens Koehrsen, 2017. "Boundary Bridging Arrangements: A Boundary Work Approach to Local Energy Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Caroline L. Noblet & Laura A. Lindenfeld & Mark W. Anderson, 2013. "Environmental Worldviews: A Point of Common Contact, or Barrier?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(11), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Alison Shaw & Patti Kristjanson, 2014. "A Catalyst toward Sustainability? Exploring Social Learning and Social Differentiation Approaches with the Agricultural Poor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-33, May.
    7. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    8. Ekaterina Bjørnåli & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2010. "Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 92-112, February.
    9. Meine van Noordwijk & Robin Matthews & Fahmuddin Agus & Jenny Farmer & Louis Verchot & Kristell Hergoualc’h & Sebastian Persch & Hesti Tata & Betha Lusiana & Atiek Widayati & Sonya Dewi, 2014. "Mud, muddle and models in the knowledge value-chain to action on tropical peatland conservation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 887-905, August.
    10. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    11. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Sabrina L. Woltmann & Lars Alkærsig, 2018. "Tracing university–industry knowledge transfer through a text mining approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 449-472, October.
    13. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Hart, David D. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2013. "Sustainability Science: A Call to Collaborative Action," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-15, April.
    15. Kelli L. Larson & Dave D. White & Patricia Gober & Amber Wutich, 2015. "Decision-Making under Uncertainty for Water Sustainability and Urban Climate Change Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-24, November.
    16. Pant, Laxmi Prasad, 2016. "Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-316.
    17. Eileen S. Johnson & Kathleen P. Bell & Jessica E. Leahy, 2018. "Managing the science-policy boundary: implications for river restoration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 281-289, September.
    18. Julia Schmale & Erika Von Schneidemesser & Axel Dörrie, 2015. "An Integrated Assessment Method for Sustainable Transport System Planning in a Middle Sized German City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, January.
    19. Lance W. Saunders & Wendy L. Tate & George A. Zsidisin & Joe Miemczyk, 2019. "The Influence of Network Exchange Brokers on Sustainable Initiatives in Organizational Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 849-868, February.
    20. Hollie Smith & Christine Gilbert, 2018. "Communication Barriers and Lessons Learned in Energy Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.

    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:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:5:p:632-645.. 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/spp .

    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.