IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i11d10.1007_s11192-023-04820-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological innovation in GRIs, universities, and the private sector: evidence from the chemical technology network in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Yong Jin Kim

    (Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology)

Abstract

As national R&D grows in scale, government-funded research institutes (GRIs) are being increasingly criticized for their low research productivity and the role of GRIs itself has become ambiguous. Hence, this study aims to investigate whether GRIs differ from universities or the private sector in terms of technological innovation and if so, how. This study also examines chemical technology as a case study, as technological innovation is active in this field and GRIs are present in relevant areas. Among the research and development projects registered in the National Science and Technology Information Service in South Korea, 4895 projects that used chemical technology were set as analysis targets: 560 projects with GRIs as the research agent, 4097 projects with universities as the research agent and 238 projects with the private sector as the research agent. Of the various indicators of technological innovation, this study examined the overall network structure characteristics and core technologies. The findings are as follows. First, GRIs and universities have similar core technologies, whereas they differ in overall network structure characteristics. Second, GRIs and the private sector have similar overall network structure characteristics, whereas they differ in terms of core technologies. These findings indicate that, at least in chemical technology, GRIs achieve technological innovation in a different form from universities and the private sector. The results of this study will likely provide implications for researchers and policymakers when establishing technological innovation policies for each research agent in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Yong Jin Kim, 2023. "Technological innovation in GRIs, universities, and the private sector: evidence from the chemical technology network in South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 5929-5948, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04820-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04820-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04820-4
    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/s11192-023-04820-4?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Yong-Gil Lee, 2012. "Strengthening competency linkage to innovation at Korean universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 219-230, January.
    3. Hochull Choe & Duk Hee Lee, 2017. "The structure and change of the research collaboration network in Korea (2000–2011): network analysis of joint patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 917-939, May.
    4. Lee, Keun & Lim, Chaisung, 2001. "Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 459-483, March.
    5. Altaf, Aqsa & Hassan, Ibn e & Batool, Sana, 2019. "The role of ORIC in the evolution of the triple helix culture of innovation: The case of Pakistan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 157-166.
    6. Lee, Dal Hwan & Bae, Zong-Tae & Lee, Jinjoo, 1991. "Performance and adaptive roles of the government-supported research institute in South Korea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 19(10), pages 1421-1440, October.
    7. Kim, Yong Jin & Lee, Duk Hee, 2020. "Technology convergence networks for flexible display application: A comparative analysis of latecomers and leaders," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    8. Hamidreza Eslami & Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2013. "Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in Canada," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 99-119, October.
    9. Chung, Hye Min & Kwon, Oh Kyoung & Han, Ok Soon & Kim, Hwa-Joong, 2020. "Evolving network characteristics of the asian international aviation market: A weighted network approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 299-313.
    10. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 433-452, September.
    11. Eom, Boo-Young & Lee, Keun, 2010. "Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 625-639, June.
    12. Leigh Dayton, 2020. "How South Korea made itself a global innovation leader," Nature, Nature, vol. 581(7809), pages 54-56, May.
    13. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    14. Alireza Abbasi & Liaquat Hossain & Shahadat Uddin & Kim J. R. Rasmussen, 2011. "Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 687-710, November.
    15. Matthew A. Shapiro, 2012. "Receiving information at Korean and Taiwanese universities, industry, and GRIs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 289-309, January.
    16. Basso, Fernanda Gisele & Pereira, Cristiano Gonçalves & Porto, Geciane Silveira, 2021. "Cooperation and technological areas in the state universities of São Paulo: An analysis from the perspective of the triple helix model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    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. Tahir Hameed & Peter Von Staden & Ki-Seok Kwon, 2018. "Sustainable Economic Growth and the Adaptability of a National System of Innovation: A Socio-Cognitive Explanation for South Korea’s Mired Technology Transfer and Commercialization Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, May.
    2. Kolade, Oluwaseun & Adegbile, Abiodun & Sarpong, David, 2022. "Can university-industry-government collaborations drive a 3D printing revolution in Africa? A triple helix model of technological leapfrogging in additive manufacturing," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Bai, Xue-Jie & Li, Zhen-Yang & Zeng, Jin, 2020. "Performance evaluation of China's innovation during the industry-university-research collaboration process—an analysis basis on the dynamic network slacks-based measurement model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Altaf, Aqsa & Hassan, Ibn e & Batool, Sana, 2019. "The role of ORIC in the evolution of the triple helix culture of innovation: The case of Pakistan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 157-166.
    5. De Fuentes, Claudia & Dutrénit, Gabriela, 2012. "Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1666-1682.
    6. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    7. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    8. Lee, Young Hoon & Kim, YoungJun, 2016. "Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 93-105.
    9. Sara Fernández López & Braulio Pérez Astray & David Rodeiro Pazos & Nuria Calvo, 2015. "Are firms interested in collaborating with universities? An open-innovation perspective in countries of the South West European Space," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 9(4), pages 637-662, December.
    10. Yu-Wei Chang, 2014. "Exploring scientific articles contributed by industries in Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 599-613, May.
    11. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo, 2019. "New evidence on the firm-university linkages in Europe. The role of meritocratic management practices," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 813-828, November.
    12. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    13. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Luisa Mota, 2012. "A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 719-743, December.
    14. Martina Fromhold-Eisebith & Claudia Werker, 2013. "Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: a geographical perspective," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 51(3), pages 621-643, December.
    15. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    16. Chung Joo Chung, 2014. "An analysis of the status of the Triple Helix and university–industry–government relationships in Asia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 139-149, April.
    17. Chen, Wei & Song, Hongti, 2024. "National innovation system: Measurement of overall effectiveness and analysis of influencing factors," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Hua Cheng & Shiqian Huang & Yinhong Yu & Zhiying Zhang & Meifen Jiang, 2023. "The 2011 Collaborative Innovation Plan, University-Industry Collaboration and Achievement Transformation of Universities: Evidence from China," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1249-1274, June.
    19. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    20. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04820-4. 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.