Impact of scientific research on achievements transformation in university from the perspective of dual innovation

GONG Hong; PENG Shan

PDF(431 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2) : 121-129.

Impact of scientific research on achievements transformation in university from the perspective of dual innovation

Gong Hong^1,2，Peng Shan¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The traditional dual paradox believes that scientific research and the achievements transformation in universities cannot be combined. Concerns have been raised that the growing emphasis on the commercial value of scientific research may have negative, unintended consequences, notably that it may have a deleterious effect on the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge or on the open-ended nature of public science. Based on the constraints of limited resources, some people believe that universities should reduce their investment in applied research, because the comparative advantage of universities lies in the basic research and the dissemination of research achievements.

However, based on the dynamic perspective of ambidextrous innovation, we propose a dynamic framework, which regards university scientific research and university achievements transformation as two major innovation activities of universities, and believes that the two can interact with each other dynamically through the role of time. This is because the duality of organization and the commercialization of scientific research in universities complement each other. Universities can coordinate the tension between academic needs and commercial needs by constructing an ambidextrous structure to promote the coordinated development of scientific research and transformation of scientific and technological achievements.

Universities that can achieve ambidextrous innovation should be able to successfully coordinate the contradictory structure, process and goal between scientific research activity and achievements transformation activity when they conduct scientific research and achievements transformation on an equal basis. This means that the traditional research achievements can be transformed into commercial output through the channel of achievements transformation. Many scholars have studied the antecedent variables of ambidextrous innovation. While we consider both external and internal factors, we have made some additional analysis on the moderating effects of the prestige of universities, the degree of industry-university-research collaboration and the degree of external competition.

We use the panel negative binomial random effect model to test the data of 64 universities directly under the Ministry of Education from 2009 to 2016. We choose the number of papers published in foreign academic journals as the proxy variable of scientific research achievements. For the achievements transformation, we only focus on the way of achievement transformation represented by the commercialization of patent sales, using the number of patent sales contracts as a measure.

The results show that the performance of universities in the past on the scientific research has positively reinforced the achievements transformation of current time. Moreover, this is not an unchangeable relationship, but is moderated by the degree of external competition and the prestige of a university. The degree of external competition faced by universities strengthens the link between scientific research and achievements transformation in the past, and the prestige of a university weakens the link between scientific research and achievements transformation in the past. This may be because, under the pressure of competition, universities have the incentive to shorten the time of transforming their scientific research achievements into market-oriented products. However, with the universal establishment of university′s scientific prestige, universities can conduct commercial development without affecting their scientific research potential. The path dependence effect of the two activities is gradually enhanced. However, the moderating effect of industry-university-research collaboration intensity is not significant. This may be because the external resources obtained by universities from the industry-university-research collaboration may be directly invested in market-oriented research and development. Compared with traditional scientific research achievements, such achievements may not require additional resources and time for development and transformation, and individuals who undertake scientific research and achievements transformation well balance the relationship between the two. Therefore, the intensity of industry-university-research collaboration does not play a moderating role in the relationship between past scientific research achievements and current achievements transformation. More importantly, we find that the commercialization channel of the achievements transformation has played a positive mediating role in the scientific research achievements at two different time points, which has formed a benign dynamic cycle between scientific research and achievements transformation. In other words, the transformation of achievements itself can affect scientific research and create a dynamic mutual promotion between them. This is because with the rise of industry-university-research alliances, interactions with industry have become more common, and researchers can derive significant benefits from this industry-university-research relationship. Cooperation with industry researchers during the process of achievements transformation may lead to new research problems and foster new cooperation, which will have a positive impact on subsequent scientific research. Moreover, our research also shows that the indirect mediating effect of the transformation of achievements is enormous, which even exceeds the direct impact of past scientific research achievements on future scientific research achievements.

Therefore, from a long-term strategic point of view, to determine the appropriate model for transformation of achievements, its role in strengthening scientific research must be considered. The transformation of achievements which has forward strengthened the scientific research of universities can create a benign circle - a university focusing on scientific research will produce a higher degree of knowledge transfer, some of which can further enhance the basis of scientific research through the way of achievements transformation.

Our research results have very important theoretical significance and application value for how to develop and balance the two ambidextrous innovative activities of scientific research and achievements transformation in universities. Universities may not have to pay too much attention to short-term or medium-term results. Because even under the intellectual property-driven commercialization path, there is a benign circle between the scientific research and the transformation of achievements, and the mediating effect of achievements transformation even exceeds the path dependence effect of scientific research itself. With the passage of time, universities can gradually build a benign circle system between scientific research and achievements transformation. When universities need to make decisions to determine the allocation of resources for scientific research and achievements transformation, our research results show that for ordinary universities, more resources should be invested to scientific research.

Key words

scientific research / achievements transformation / ambidextrous innovation / dynamics

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Gong Hong, Peng Shan. Impact of scientific research on achievements transformation in university from the perspective of dual innovation[J]. Science Research Management. 2021, 42(2): 121-129

References

[1] Dasgupta P, David P A. Towards a new economics of science[J]. Research Policy, 1994,23(5): 487-521.

[2] Nelson R R. Reflections on “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research”: looking back and looking forward[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2006,15(6): 903-917.

[3] Walsh J P, Cohen W M, Cho C. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research[J]. Research Policy, 2007,36(8): 1184-1203.

[4] Nelson R R. The market economy, and the scientific commons[J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(3): 455-471.

[5] Stephan P E, Gurmu S, Sumell A J, et al. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2007,16(2): 71-99.

[6] 许春. 基于91所重点高校学术研究与应用研究关系的实证分析[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2013，25(3)：106-116.

Xu Chun. Empirical analysis on the relationship between universities' academic research and applied research based on 91 key universities in China[J]. R&D Management, 2013，25(3)：106-116.

[7] Chang Y, Yang P Y, Chen M. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective[J]. Research Policy, 2009,38(6): 936-946.

[8] Ambos T C, M Kel K, Birkinshaw J, et al. When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45(8): 1424-1447.

[9] 温琳，陈光华. 科研与科技成果转化的双元协调机制——以美国清洁能源计划为例[J]. 技术经济，2016，35(10)：59-65.

Wen Lin，Chen Guanghua. Ambidextrous coordinating mechanism of R&D and S&T achievement transformation: Case of U.S. clean energy plan[J]. Technology Economics，2016，35(10)：59-65.

[10] Mazzolenia R, Nelsonb R R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate[J]. Research Policy, 1998,27(3): 273-284.

[11] Auh S, Menguc B. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2005,58(12): 1652-1661.

[12] Van Looy B, Martens T, Debackere K. Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations[J]. Creativity & Innovation Management, 2005,14(3): 208-221.

[13] Lavie D, Rosenkopf L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006,49(4): 797-818.

[14] Lin Z J, Yang H, Demirkan I. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing[J]. Management Science, 2007,53(10): 1645-1658.

[15] Lee Y S. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2000,25(2): 111-133.

[16] Tether B S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis[J]. Research Policy, 2002,31(6): 947-967.

[17] 原长弘，贾一伟，方坤，等. 中国大学体制类型对高校知识转移的影响:一个基于资源观的分析[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理，2009，30(7)：134-138.

Yuan Changhong，Jia Yiwei，Fang Kun，et al. Effects of university type on university knowledge transfer in China: A resource-based view [J]. Science of Science and Management of S.&.T.，2009，30(7)：134-138.

[18] Gulbrandsen M, Smeby J. Industry funding and university professors’research performance[J]. Research Policy, 2005,34(6): 932-950.

[19]易高峰. 大学科研人员学术创业意愿的影响因素及其作用路径研究[J]. 科研管理. 2020，41(9): 247-256.

Yi Gaofeng. Factors influencing academic entrepreneurial intentions among academics and their acting paths[J]. Science Research Management, 2020,41(9): 247-256.

[20]Siegel D S, Waldman D, Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study[J]. Research Policy, 2003,32(1): 27-48.

[21] Fabrizio K R, Di Minin A. Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment[J]. Research Policy, 2008,37(5): 914-931.

[22] Sine W D, Shane S, Di Gregorio D. The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions[J]. Management Science, 2003,49(4): 478-496.

[23] 贺德方，周华东，陈涛. 我国科技创新政策体系建设主要进展及对政策方向的思考[J]. 科研管理. 2020，41(10): 81-88.

He Defang, Zhou Huadong, Chen Tao. Major achievements and development direction in construction of China's science and technology innovation policy system[J]. Science Research Management, 2020，41(10): 81-88.