IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jbecon/v90y2020i8d10.1007_s11573-020-00979-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing act between research and application: how research orientation and networks affect scholars’ academic and commercial output

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Werker

    (Delft University of Technology
    RWTH Aachen University)

  • Christian Hopp

    (RWTH Aachen University)

Abstract

Scholars’ balancing act between research and application leads to trade-offs between commercial and research output. Yet what some scholars may consider as poles apart might lead to super-additive outcomes for others. Based on a survey carried out at three leading European universities of technology we investigate the influence of scholars’ research orientation and networks on their output productivity. Our results point to a very specific group of ambidextrous scholars that is comparatively small. The scholars in this group are able to successfully balance research and application. In contrast, all scholars focusing on either pure basic or pure applied research face a trade-off between publications and innovations. In general, our findings suggest that the output productivity of all scholars is the higher the better their research orientation fits with their network activities. In particular, ambidextrous scholars rely on effectively accessing and utilizing their network to increase commercial and research output.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Werker & Christian Hopp, 2020. "Balancing act between research and application: how research orientation and networks affect scholars’ academic and commercial output," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(8), pages 1171-1197, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jbecon:v:90:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s11573-020-00979-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11573-020-00979-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11573-020-00979-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11573-020-00979-x?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. Margarethe F. Wiersema & Harry P. Bowen, 2009. "The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: issues and methods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 679-692, June.
    2. Nicolas Carayol, 2004. "Academic incentives and research organization for patenting at a large French university," Post-Print hal-00279232, HAL.
    3. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    4. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Denise M. Rousseau, 2009. "Bridging the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening!," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 534-546, May.
    5. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    6. Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2011. "Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1077-1083, October.
    7. Lazzeretti, Luciana & Capone, Francesco, 2016. "How proximity matters in innovation networks dynamics along the cluster evolution. A study of the high technology applied to cultural goods," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5855-5865.
    8. Alan D. MacPherson, 1998. "Academic-industry linkages and small firm innovation: evidence from the scientific instruments sector," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 261-276, January.
    9. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    10. Nicolas Carayol, 2007. "Academic Incentives, Research Organization And Patenting At A Large French University," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 119-138.
    11. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    12. Joep P. Cornelissen, 2017. "Preserving Theoretical Divergence in Management Research: Why the Explanatory Potential of Qualitative Research Should Be Harnessed Rather than Suppressed," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 368-383, May.
    13. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    14. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Jialan Wang, 2010. "Superstar Extinction," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(2), pages 549-589.
    15. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    16. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    17. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    18. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Yang, Phil Y. & Chen, Ming-Huei, 2009. "The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 936-946, July.
    19. Verspagen, Bart & Werker, Claudia, 2004. "Keith Pavitt and the Invisible College of the Economics of Technology and Innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1419-1431, November.
    20. Ben R. Martin, 2012. "Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(3), pages 543-565.
    21. Nelson, Andrew J., 2012. "Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 678-691.
    22. Albert Banal-Estañol & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Cornelia Meissner, 2008. "Theimpact of industry collaboration on research: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Economics Working Papers 1190, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Aug 2010.
    23. 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.
    24. Albert N. Link & Donald S. Siegel & Barry Bozeman, 2007. "An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 641-655, August.
    25. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    26. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    27. Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
    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. Mario Fernandes & Andreas Walter, 2023. "The times they are a-changin’: profiling newly tenured business economics professors in Germany over the past thirty years," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(5), pages 929-971, July.
    2. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.

    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. Freel, Mark & Persaud, Ajax & Chamberlin, Tyler, 2019. "Faculty ideals and universities' third mission," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 10-21.
    2. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    3. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2018. "Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1626-1638.
    5. Belitski, Maksim & Aginskaja, Anna & Marozau, Radzivon, 2019. "Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 601-615.
    6. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    7. Alessandra Scandura & Simona Iammarino, 2022. "Academic engagement with industry: the role of research quality and experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1000-1036, August.
    8. Meng, Donghui & Li, Xianjun & Rong, Ke, 2019. "Industry-to-university knowledge transfer in ecosystem-based academic entrepreneurship: Case study of automotive dynamics & control group in Tsinghua University," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 249-262.
    9. Crespi, Gustavo & D'Este, Pablo & Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo, 2011. "The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 55-68, February.
    10. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2014. "Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 109-133, March.
    11. Carla Mascarenhas & Carla Marques & João J. Ferreira & Anderson Galvão, 2022. "University-Industry Collaboration in a Cross-Border Iberian Regions," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 45(4), pages 444-471, July.
    12. Emerson Gomes Santos & Renato Garcia & Veneziano Araujo & Suelene Mascarini & Ariana Costa, 2021. "Spatial and non‐spatial proximity in university–industry collaboration: Mutual reinforcement and decreasing effects," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 1249-1261, August.
    13. Zhiyan Zhao & Anders Broström & Jianfeng Cai, 2020. "Promoting academic engagement: university context and individual characteristics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 304-337, February.
    14. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    15. Amara, Nabil & Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio, 2019. "Overcoming the “lost before translation” problem: An exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 22-36.
    16. Maria Abreu & Vadim Grinevich, 2017. "Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 763-794, August.
    17. Nasirov, Shukhrat & Joshi, Amol M., 2023. "Minding the communications gap: How can universities signal the availability and value of their scientific knowledge to commercial organizations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    18. Uhlbach, Wolf-Hendrik & Tartari, Valentina & Kongsted, Hans Christian, 2022. "Beyond scientific excellence: International mobility and the entrepreneurial activities of academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    19. Lawson Cornelia & Sterzi Valerio, 2012. "The role of early career factors in academic patenting," 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 201201, University of Turin.
    20. Blind, Knut & Pohlisch, Jakob & Zi, Aikaterini, 2018. "Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1185-1197.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Academia; Output; Research orientation; Networks; Ambidexterity;
    All these keywords.

    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
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • J4 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets

    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:spr:jbecon:v:90:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s11573-020-00979-x. 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.