Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents

The fulfillment of the University’s Third Mission has led the university to become a key actor for social and economic development in its regions of influence through a much closer linkage with the different agents in its environment. Thus, the literature has highlighted both the benefits derived fr...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Naranjo-Africano, Gloria, VEGA-JURADO, JAIDER, Manjarres-Henríquez, Liney
Formato: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:Colombia
Recursos:Corporación Universidad de la Costa
Repositorio:Repositorio REDICUC
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/10490
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/11323/10490
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Third mission
Barriers
Organizational aspects
Researcher characteristics
Stokes quadrant
id CO_26b7e4e2a2d99b21fbf44b91ccb70ef7
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/10490
network_acronym_str CO
network_name_str Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
title Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
spellingShingle Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
Naranjo-Africano, Gloria
Third mission
Barriers
Organizational aspects
Researcher characteristics
Stokes quadrant
title_short Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
title_full Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
title_fullStr Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
title_full_unstemmed Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
title_sort Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Naranjo-Africano, Gloria
VEGA-JURADO, JAIDER
Manjarres-Henríquez, Liney
author Naranjo-Africano, Gloria
author_facet Naranjo-Africano, Gloria
VEGA-JURADO, JAIDER
Manjarres-Henríquez, Liney
author_role author
author2 VEGA-JURADO, JAIDER
Manjarres-Henríquez, Liney
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Third mission
Barriers
Organizational aspects
Researcher characteristics
Stokes quadrant
topic Third mission
Barriers
Organizational aspects
Researcher characteristics
Stokes quadrant
description The fulfillment of the University’s Third Mission has led the university to become a key actor for social and economic development in its regions of influence through a much closer linkage with the different agents in its environment. Thus, the literature has highlighted both the benefits derived from the Third University Mission, the difficulties inherent in the process and the existence of various barriers that can hinder its consolidation in the academic environment. Within the framework of these studies, it has been possible to identify three types of barriers to adopting the third mission: process, researcher, and ally or partner. It is worth mentioning that most of the research developed to date has focused on the study of the impact of the barriers on the development of the Third Mission but not on the analysis of the factors that can influence or attenuate the perception of these barriers. This is surprising if one considers that identifying these factors is relevant in designing strategies to promote the University’s Third Mission. Therefore, this article aims to identify the factors that influence or attenuate the researcher’s perception of different types of barriers to developing Third Mission activities. The study was based on data from a survey applied to a sample of academics categorized in the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation of Colombia and linked to 6 higher education institutions in the Colombian Caribbean region. Binary logistic regression models were established to analyze the data obtained. The results obtained suggest that, in addition to the researcher's previous experience in the external sector, their perception of the existence of processes or support services provided by the university for the promotion of relationships with actors in the socioeconomic environment is important to mitigate the barriers perceived during the development of Third Mission activities, especially when these activities are located in the support for the management and execution of technology transfer activities. In particular, it was found that as the academic's perception of the policies and procedures, support activities, and the university's technology transfer capacity improves, the barriers of both the researcher and those associated with the process are dissipated. This implies that universities should advance in the institutionalization of the third mission and in strengthening the functions of promotion, advice and support, as well as promotion structures and thus be able to mitigate the perceived barriers to the development of the University’s Third Mission.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-09-18T16:15:07Z
2023-09-18T16:15:07Z
2023
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bc
Text
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv Naranjo-Africano, G., Vega-Jurado, J. & Manjarres-Henríquez, L. Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents. J Innov Entrep 12, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/10490
10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4
2192-5372
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
identifier_str_mv Naranjo-Africano, G., Vega-Jurado, J. & Manjarres-Henríquez, L. Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents. J Innov Entrep 12, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4
10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4
2192-5372
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
url https://hdl.handle.net/11323/10490
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Abello, R., & Pardo Sánchez, K. (2014). Modelos de investigación y desarrollo en instituciones de educación superior en Colombia: El caso de la Universidad del Norte en la región Caribe de Colombia. Investigación & Desarrollo, 22(2), 187–211.
Alpizar-Terrero, M. Á., León-Robaina, R., & Dentchev, N. (2017). Las barreras a la comercialización de los resultados de la investigación en la relación universidad-empresa. Estudio de caso The barriers for commercializing science results in the university- industry relationship. A case study. Santiago, 145, 204–221. Retrieved from http://revistas.uo.edu.cu/ index.php/stgo/article/viewFile/3435/3057
Alvarez, G. (2013). La Percepcion De La Organizacion: Clave Para La Comprension Del Comportamiento Del Individuo En La Organizacion. Revista Sobre Relaciones Industriales y Laborales, 0, 29–48. Retrieved from http://revistasenlinea. saber.ucab.edu.ve/temas/index.php/rrii2/article/view/1009/913
Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Is there any impact of university-industry knowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? An empirical analysis based on swiss frm data. Review of Industrial Organization, 32(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-008-9164-1
Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Efective university—Industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collabora‑ tive R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00044-0
Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007
Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2005). “The Triple Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors infuencing the perceived barriers?” 5th Triple Helix Conference, 1–48.
Benneworth, P., & Hospers, G.-J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global/ local pipelines. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 25(6), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0620
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. In Research Policy (Vol. 29, S, 29, 627–655). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collabora‑ tion. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
Caliari, T., & Chiarini, T. (2018). Análisis de los grupos de investigación de las áreas científcas con mayor aplicabilidad productiva en el Brasil: competencias e interacciones con las empresas. Apuntes Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 45(82), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.21678/apuntes.82.864
Carnegie, G. D., & Tuck, J. (2010). Understanding the ABC of university governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00699.x
Castro-Martínez, E., Olmos-Peñuela, J., & Fernandez-De-Lucio, I. (2016). La Vinculación Ciencia-Sociedad: Estereotipos y Nuevos Enfoques. 11(2).
Closs, L., Ferreira, G. C., Soria, A. F., Sampaio, C. H., & Perin, M. (2012). Organizational factors that afect the universityindustry technology transfer processes of a private university. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000100007
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The infuence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
Consejo Privado de Competitividad. (2018). Informe Nacional de Competitividad 2018b-2019 (p. 440). Retrieved from https://compite.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2018b/10/CPC_INC_2018b-2019_Web.pdf
Cornell, S. J. C. of B., INSEAD, T. B. S. for the W., & WIPO, W. I. P. O. (2018c). GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018c Energizing the World with Innovation (Vol. 11). Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018c-report
Craig Boardman, P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interac‑ tions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1
Eom, B.-Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry–academy linkages and their impact on frm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39(5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2010.01.015
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive efects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorf, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048- 7333(99)00055-4
Fielden, J. (2008). Global trends in university governance. Education working paper series, 9, 278200-1099079877269.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674618658
Geuna, A., Muscio, A., Geuna, A., Geuna Brick, A., Alberto, C. C., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowl‑ edge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2
Goddard, J. (2011). European Union Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/ universities2011/universities2011_en.pdf
Göransson, B., Maharajh, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). New challenges for universities beyond education and research. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 83–84. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X406872
Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004
Halilem, N., Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2011). Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada. Scientometrics, 86, 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0278-5
Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.006
Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2009). The economic and innovation contribution of universities: a regional perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(6), 1088–1106. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/6898/
Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: New evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 723–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes017
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that infuence university-based researchers’ engage‑ ment in knowledge transfer activities. In Science Communication (Vol. 25, Issue 3, pp. 246–259). https://doi.org/10. 1177/1075547003262038
Jongbloed, B., Rgen, J., Ae, E., Salerno, C., Jongbloed, B., Enders, Á. J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its com‑ munities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2
Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.003
Lee, Y. S. (1996). “Technology transfer” and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration 1. ELSEVIER Research Policy, 25, 843–863. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/0048733395008578/ 1-s2.0-0048733395008578-main.pdf?_tid=697be81e-2993-11e7-9bdc-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1493110056_e1b99 0680bf9e033c15d1334f40c76e7
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020
Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Carrión-García, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2009). The efects of university-industry relationships and academic research on scientifc performance: Synergy or substitution? Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9142-y
Mansfeld, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00893-1
Martin, B. (2002). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance (pp. 7–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four felds. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8
Mitton, C., Adair, C., McKenzie, E., Patten, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18070335
Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and confict in the development of “Third Mission” indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X263592
Molas-Gallart, J., D’Este, P., Llopis, O., & Rafols, I. (2016). Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv027
Morales-Rubiano, M. E., Sanabria Rangel, P. E., & Plata Pacheco, P. A. (2014). Determinantes de la transferencia de propie‑ dad industrial al sector productivo en universidades públicas colombianas. Cuadernos de Administracion, 30(51), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2015.18.1.7
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2014). Diferencias entre áreas científcas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científca, 37(2), e040. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University—Industry relationships and open innovation : Towards a research agenda. Internal Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
Rossi, F. (2010). European Journal of Innovation Management The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer. The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer. European Journal of Innovation Management in China. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040230
Schiller, D., & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher education funding reform and university–industry links in developing countries: The case of Thailand. Higher Education, 54, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9011-y
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the efective transfer of scientifc knowl‑edge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management-JET-M, 21(1–2), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengt ecman.2003.12.006
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15707179557675195810&hl=es&as_ sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5
Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefts and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts004
Tartari, V., Salter, A., & D’Este, P. (2012). Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ bes007
Tunnermann, C. (2010). La reforma universitaria de Córdoba. Educación Superior y Sociedad, 9(1), 103–128. Recuperado a partir de https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/article/view/182.
Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6355-z
Vega-Jurado, J., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2011). Las relaciones universidad-empresa: Tendencias y desafíos en el marco del espacio iberoamericano del conocimiento. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 4(57), 109–124.
Vega-Jurado, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., & Huanca-Lopez, R. (2007). La relación universidad-empresa en América Latina:¿ apropiación incorrecta de modelos foráneos?. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(3), 97–109.
Vega-Jurado, J., Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Fernández-De-Lucio, I., & Naranjo-Africano, G. (2020). A virtuous circle? The efects of university-industry relationships in a region with low absorptive capacity. Science and Public Policy, 47(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa030
Wang, Y., Hu, R., Li, W., & Pan, X. (2016). Does teaching beneft from university–industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and engagement. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1037–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-015-1818-9
23
1
36
12
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv © 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated.
Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv © 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated.
Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 23 páginas
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SpringerOpen
Germany
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SpringerOpen
Germany
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4
reponame:Repositorio REDICUC
instname:Corporación Universidad de la Costa
instacron:Corporación Universidad de la Costa
instname_str Corporación Universidad de la Costa
instacron_str Corporación Universidad de la Costa
institution Corporación Universidad de la Costa
reponame_str Repositorio REDICUC
collection Repositorio REDICUC
_version_ 1825052859782135808
spelling Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedentsNaranjo-Africano, GloriaVEGA-JURADO, JAIDERManjarres-Henríquez, LineyThird missionBarriersOrganizational aspectsResearcher characteristicsStokes quadrantThe fulfillment of the University’s Third Mission has led the university to become a key actor for social and economic development in its regions of influence through a much closer linkage with the different agents in its environment. Thus, the literature has highlighted both the benefits derived from the Third University Mission, the difficulties inherent in the process and the existence of various barriers that can hinder its consolidation in the academic environment. Within the framework of these studies, it has been possible to identify three types of barriers to adopting the third mission: process, researcher, and ally or partner. It is worth mentioning that most of the research developed to date has focused on the study of the impact of the barriers on the development of the Third Mission but not on the analysis of the factors that can influence or attenuate the perception of these barriers. This is surprising if one considers that identifying these factors is relevant in designing strategies to promote the University’s Third Mission. Therefore, this article aims to identify the factors that influence or attenuate the researcher’s perception of different types of barriers to developing Third Mission activities. The study was based on data from a survey applied to a sample of academics categorized in the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation of Colombia and linked to 6 higher education institutions in the Colombian Caribbean region. Binary logistic regression models were established to analyze the data obtained. The results obtained suggest that, in addition to the researcher's previous experience in the external sector, their perception of the existence of processes or support services provided by the university for the promotion of relationships with actors in the socioeconomic environment is important to mitigate the barriers perceived during the development of Third Mission activities, especially when these activities are located in the support for the management and execution of technology transfer activities. In particular, it was found that as the academic's perception of the policies and procedures, support activities, and the university's technology transfer capacity improves, the barriers of both the researcher and those associated with the process are dissipated. This implies that universities should advance in the institutionalization of the third mission and in strengthening the functions of promotion, advice and support, as well as promotion structures and thus be able to mitigate the perceived barriers to the development of the University’s Third Mission.SpringerOpenGermany2023-09-18T16:15:07Z2023-09-18T16:15:07Z2023Artículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcTextinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a8523 páginasapplication/pdfapplication/pdfNaranjo-Africano, G., Vega-Jurado, J. & Manjarres-Henríquez, L. Barriers to Third Mission: organizational and individual antecedents. J Innov Entrep 12, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4https://hdl.handle.net/11323/1049010.1186/s13731-023-00300-42192-5372Corporación Universidad de la CostaREDICUC - Repositorio CUChttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-023-00300-4reponame:Repositorio REDICUCinstname:Corporación Universidad de la Costainstacron:Corporación Universidad de la CostaengJournal of Innovation and EntrepreneurshipAbello, R., & Pardo Sánchez, K. (2014). Modelos de investigación y desarrollo en instituciones de educación superior en Colombia: El caso de la Universidad del Norte en la región Caribe de Colombia. Investigación & Desarrollo, 22(2), 187–211.Alpizar-Terrero, M. Á., León-Robaina, R., & Dentchev, N. (2017). Las barreras a la comercialización de los resultados de la investigación en la relación universidad-empresa. Estudio de caso The barriers for commercializing science results in the university- industry relationship. A case study. Santiago, 145, 204–221. Retrieved from http://revistas.uo.edu.cu/ index.php/stgo/article/viewFile/3435/3057Alvarez, G. (2013). La Percepcion De La Organizacion: Clave Para La Comprension Del Comportamiento Del Individuo En La Organizacion. Revista Sobre Relaciones Industriales y Laborales, 0, 29–48. Retrieved from http://revistasenlinea. saber.ucab.edu.ve/temas/index.php/rrii2/article/view/1009/913Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Is there any impact of university-industry knowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? An empirical analysis based on swiss frm data. Review of Industrial Organization, 32(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-008-9164-1Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Efective university—Industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collabora‑ tive R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00044-0Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2005). “The Triple Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors infuencing the perceived barriers?” 5th Triple Helix Conference, 1–48.Benneworth, P., & Hospers, G.-J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global/ local pipelines. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 25(6), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0620Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. In Research Policy (Vol. 29, S, 29, 627–655). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collabora‑ tion. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006Caliari, T., & Chiarini, T. (2018). Análisis de los grupos de investigación de las áreas científcas con mayor aplicabilidad productiva en el Brasil: competencias e interacciones con las empresas. Apuntes Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 45(82), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.21678/apuntes.82.864Carnegie, G. D., & Tuck, J. (2010). Understanding the ABC of university governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00699.xCastro-Martínez, E., Olmos-Peñuela, J., & Fernandez-De-Lucio, I. (2016). La Vinculación Ciencia-Sociedad: Estereotipos y Nuevos Enfoques. 11(2).Closs, L., Ferreira, G. C., Soria, A. F., Sampaio, C. H., & Perin, M. (2012). Organizational factors that afect the universityindustry technology transfer processes of a private university. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000100007Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The infuence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273Consejo Privado de Competitividad. (2018). Informe Nacional de Competitividad 2018b-2019 (p. 440). Retrieved from https://compite.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2018b/10/CPC_INC_2018b-2019_Web.pdfCornell, S. J. C. of B., INSEAD, T. B. S. for the W., & WIPO, W. I. P. O. (2018c). GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018c Energizing the World with Innovation (Vol. 11). Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018c-reportCraig Boardman, P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interac‑ tions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1Eom, B.-Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry–academy linkages and their impact on frm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39(5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2010.01.015Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive efects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorf, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048- 7333(99)00055-4Fielden, J. (2008). Global trends in university governance. Education working paper series, 9, 278200-1099079877269.Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674618658Geuna, A., Muscio, A., Geuna, A., Geuna Brick, A., Alberto, C. C., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowl‑ edge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2Goddard, J. (2011). European Union Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/ universities2011/universities2011_en.pdfGöransson, B., Maharajh, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). New challenges for universities beyond education and research. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 83–84. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X406872Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004Halilem, N., Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2011). Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada. Scientometrics, 86, 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0278-5Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.006Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2009). The economic and innovation contribution of universities: a regional perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(6), 1088–1106. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/6898/Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: New evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 723–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes017Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that infuence university-based researchers’ engage‑ ment in knowledge transfer activities. In Science Communication (Vol. 25, Issue 3, pp. 246–259). https://doi.org/10. 1177/1075547003262038Jongbloed, B., Rgen, J., Ae, E., Salerno, C., Jongbloed, B., Enders, Á. J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its com‑ munities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.003Lee, Y. S. (1996). “Technology transfer” and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration 1. ELSEVIER Research Policy, 25, 843–863. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/0048733395008578/ 1-s2.0-0048733395008578-main.pdf?_tid=697be81e-2993-11e7-9bdc-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1493110056_e1b99 0680bf9e033c15d1334f40c76e7Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Carrión-García, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2009). The efects of university-industry relationships and academic research on scientifc performance: Synergy or substitution? Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9142-yMansfeld, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00893-1Martin, B. (2002). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance (pp. 7–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four felds. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8Mitton, C., Adair, C., McKenzie, E., Patten, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18070335Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and confict in the development of “Third Mission” indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X263592Molas-Gallart, J., D’Este, P., Llopis, O., & Rafols, I. (2016). Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv027Morales-Rubiano, M. E., Sanabria Rangel, P. E., & Plata Pacheco, P. A. (2014). Determinantes de la transferencia de propie‑ dad industrial al sector productivo en universidades públicas colombianas. Cuadernos de Administracion, 30(51), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2015.18.1.7Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2014). Diferencias entre áreas científcas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científca, 37(2), e040. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University—Industry relationships and open innovation : Towards a research agenda. Internal Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.xRossi, F. (2010). European Journal of Innovation Management The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer. The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer. European Journal of Innovation Management in China. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040230Schiller, D., & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher education funding reform and university–industry links in developing countries: The case of Thailand. Higher Education, 54, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9011-ySiegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the efective transfer of scientifc knowl‑edge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management-JET-M, 21(1–2), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengt ecman.2003.12.006Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15707179557675195810&hl=es&as_ sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefts and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts004Tartari, V., Salter, A., & D’Este, P. (2012). Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ bes007Tunnermann, C. (2010). La reforma universitaria de Córdoba. Educación Superior y Sociedad, 9(1), 103–128. Recuperado a partir de https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/article/view/182.Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6355-zVega-Jurado, J., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2011). Las relaciones universidad-empresa: Tendencias y desafíos en el marco del espacio iberoamericano del conocimiento. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 4(57), 109–124.Vega-Jurado, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., & Huanca-Lopez, R. (2007). La relación universidad-empresa en América Latina:¿ apropiación incorrecta de modelos foráneos?. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(3), 97–109.Vega-Jurado, J., Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Fernández-De-Lucio, I., & Naranjo-Africano, G. (2020). A virtuous circle? The efects of university-industry relationships in a region with low absorptive capacity. Science and Public Policy, 47(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa030Wang, Y., Hu, R., Li, W., & Pan, X. (2016). Does teaching beneft from university–industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and engagement. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1037–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-015-1818-92313612© 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated.Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf22024-09-17T15:55:04Z
score 15,812455

Registos relacionados