The Impact of Academia on the Dynamics of Innovation …The Impact of Academia on the Dynamics of Innovation Systems: Capturing and explaining utilities from academic R&D Eugenia Perez

i

THESISFORTHEDEGREEOFDOCTOROFPHILOSOFY

TheImpactofAcademiaontheDynamicsofInnovationSystems

CapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D

EUGENIAPEREZVICO

EnvironmentalSystemsAnalysisDepartmentofEnergyandEnvironmentCHALMERSUNIVERSITYOFTECHNOLOGY

Gothenburg,Sweden,2013

ii

TheimpactofacademiaonthedynamicsofinnovationsystemsCapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&DEugeniaPerezVicoISBN978‐91‐7385‐896‐0©EUGENIAPEREZVICO,2013DoktorsavhandlingarvidChalmerstekniskahögskolaNyserieNr3577ISSN0346‐718XEsa‐report2013:9ISSN1404‐8167EnvironmentalSystemsAnalysisDepartmentofEnergyandEnvironmentChalmersUniversityofTechnologySE‐41296GothenburgSwedenTelephone+46(0)31‐7721000Cover:“Thewave”,IllustrationbyAlexandraDahlqvist.Thefigurewithamicroscopeheadsymbolisesaresearcherwhoisbeingfedresearchfundsthroughaslotfromthehandofaresearchfunder.Thewavefilledwithobjectscomingoutofthesamplingplateintheresearcher’shandillustratesthediverseutilitiesthatmaterialiseoutofacademicresearch.ChalmersReproserviceGothenburg,Sweden2013

iii

“Ifweknewwhatitwasweweredoing,itwouldnotbecalledresearch,wouldit?”

‐AlbertEinstein

iv

v

TheImpactofAcademiaontheDynamicsofInnovationSystems:Capturingand

explainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D

EugeniaPerezVico

EnvironmentalSystemsAnalysis,ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,Sweden

Abstract

Thenotionthatacademicresearchcreatessocietalbenefitsiswidelyrecognised.

However,therearevaryingperceptionsofwhatsuchbenefitsmayinclude,anddiverse

ideasregardingthewaysinwhichtheyarecreated.Someresearchpolicyactorsexpect

academicresearchtogeneratetangibleanddirectoutputsrelatedtocommercialisation,

suchasspin‐offcompanies,patentsandlicences.Othersarguethatacademicresearch

maygenerateutilitiesinmoresubtleandindirectwaysthatarenotencompassedby

commercialisation,andwhicharelinkedtocomplex,uncertainprocessesthatspan

decades.Theperceptionsofhowutilitiesaregeneratedinfluenceevaluationprocedures

andpolicyinitiatives,whichiswhyrealisticrepresentationsareparamount.

Thisthesisaimstocontributetotheunderstandingofhowutilitiesaregeneratedfrom

academicresearchanddevelopment.Thethesisdrawsonconceptsfromtechnological

innovationsystemsandresearchpolicyliteraturetoexaminethreecases:Swedish

nanotechnologyresearch,energyandenvironmentresearchatatechnological

universityandtheresearchofaphysicsprofessor.

ThisthesisdevelopsaframeworkforcapturingandexplainingacademicR&Dutilities.

First,byenrichingthetechnologicalinnovationsystemsapproachwithatypologyof

activitiesspringingfromorembeddedwithinacademicR&D,thisthesisidentifiesand

examinesmultidimensionalacademicutilities.Second,bytracingutilitiesthrough

innovationsub‐processinterdependencies,thethesisidentifieslong‐termandindirect

utilitiescreatedin‘sequencesofimpact’.Third,thediverse‘roles’ofresearchersare

examinedbasedontheirmainactivities.Thisframeworkallowsidentifyingutilitiesthat

transcendconventionalindicators;understandingindividualvariationsinhow

researcherscreateutilities;capturingmoresubtle,long‐termandindirectutilities;and

explaininghowwidercontextsconditionthedevelopmentofutilities.Thethesis

vi

concludeswithkeyimplicationsforresearchpolicywhichshoulddevelopaninformed

viewofacademicutilitythatacknowledgesthegreatdiversityofbenefits,especially

thoseofanindirectandlong‐termcharacter.Policyshouldalsooffersupportsystems

thatencouragethedevelopmentofdiversebenefits;applyasystemsperspectiveon

policy‐making;andrecognizethegreatchallengesofassessingtheutilityofacademic

R&D.

KEYWORDS–impactofacademicR&D;technologicalinnovationsystem;research

evaluation;utilityofresearch

vii

Listofpublications

Thefollowingpapersareincludedinthisthesis:

PaperI: Jacobsson,S.,PerezVico,E.,2010.TowardsasystemicframeworkforcapturingandexplainingtheeffectsofacademicR&D.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement22,765–787.

PaperII: PerezVico,E.,Jacobsson,S.,2012.Identifying,explainingandimprovingtheeffectsofacademicR&D:thecaseofnanotechnologyinSweden.ScienceandPublicPolicy39,513–529.

PaperIII: Jacobsson,S.,PerezVico,E.,Hellsmark,H.,2013b.Themanywaysofacademicresearchers:Howscienceismadeuseful.Manuscriptinreview(minorrevision)ScienceandPublicPolicy.

PaperIV: PerezVico,E.,2013.TracingsequencesofimpactfromacademicR&D:Anin‐depthstudyofaprofessorinphysics.Manuscriptinreview(majorrevision)ScienceandPublicPolicy.

PaperV: PerezVico,E.,Hellsmark,H.,Jacob,M.,2013.Enactingknowledgetransfer:Acontext(in)‐dependentand“role‐based”typologyforcapturingutilityfromUniversityresearch.ManuscriptsubmittedtoPrometheus:CriticalStudiesinInnovation.

viii

ix

Acknowledgements

Thejourneyleadingtothisdissertationwasaccomplishedwiththesupport,inspiration,

andhelpofmany.First,IwouldliketothankVINNOVAandMISTRAforthefinancial

support.Foremost,thankyou,StaffanJacobsson!Icouldnothavewishedforamore

engagedsupervisorandexaminer.Youhavebeenwholeheartedlygenerouswithyour

timeandencouragedmetochallengemyselfandtakemyresearchonestepfurther.

FromyouIhavelearntthegreatvalueofintegrityandsoundnessinresearch,aswellas

theimportanceofbalancingworkandlife.

LennartElgandBjörnSandén,thankyouforbeingexcellentco‐supervisors.Lennart,

youhavebeenacherishedcolleagueatVINNOVA,awisementor,alifelineandadear

friend.Björn,youhavegenerouslynurturedthisresearchjourneywiththought‐

provoking,inspiringandfundiscussions,andyoursupporthasalwaysbeenpresent.

MydearcolleaguesatESAhavehadacentralroleinthisjourney.Thankyouallfor

sharingyourknowledge,kindnessandgreatsenseofhumour.Inparticular,Iowemy

roommatesDuncanKushnir,forbeingatrulyintelligentdiscussionpartner,andKersti

Karltorp,forbeingagenuinefriend.

ThisjourneyhasbeenundertakeninparalleltomyworkatVINNOVA,andIamreally

gratefultohavehadsuchaninspiringandfungroupofcolleaguesandfriendsthere.

Yoursupport,encouragementsandknowledgehasmeantalottome.

I’vehadthepleasureofsharingthelaterpartsofthisjourneywithtwoco‐authors.Hans

HellsmarkandMerleJacob,myboldaccomplices,thankyouforenrichingmyworkwith

bright,newtakesandmanylaughs.

Last,butfarfromleast,agreatnumberofpersonshaveencouraged,supportedand

enablemetobalanceworkandlife.Toallmysparringpartners,surfbuddiesand

wonderfulfriends,thankyouforofferingmeacolourful,vibrantandlovingrealmthat

keepsmeawayfromwork.Tomyparents,thankyouforalltheopportunitiesyouhave

givenmeinlife,andforyourboundlessloveandgreatinspiration.Tomydearestsister

Juliana,thankyouforbeingmyguidingstarandmyverybestfriend.

x

xi

Contents 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Purpose,aimandscope.............................................................................................................3

1.2. Theresearchprocess..................................................................................................................4

1.3. Someintroductorynotesonmethod...................................................................................7

1.4. Overviewofthepapersandtheircontributions.............................................................9

1.5. Outlineoftheintroductorychapter..................................................................................11

2. Pointsofdeparture............................................................................................................................11

2.1. UtilityofacademicR&Dinresearchpolicyliterature...............................................11

2.2. Thetechnologicalinnovationsystemconcept..............................................................16

3. AframeworkforcapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D.................19

3.1. ActivitiesspringingfromorembeddedwithinacademicR&D.............................21

3.2. Linkingactivitieswithkeyinnovationsubprocesses................................................22

3.3. SequencesofimpactfromacademicR&D......................................................................24

3.4. Atypologyofrolesthatresearchersenactinmakingresearchuseful..............26

3.5. Amultidimensional,dynamicandcontext‐dependentframework.....................29

4. Methodforconductingtheempiricalstudies........................................................................30

4.1. Caseselection..............................................................................................................................30

4.2. Datacollectionandanalysis..................................................................................................31

4.3. Methodologicalreflectionsfromtheempiricalstudies............................................32

5. Resultsandconclusionsfromtheempiricalstudies...........................................................33

5.1. ThecaseofSwedishnanotechnology...............................................................................34

5.2. ThecaseofChalmersEnergyInitiative............................................................................34

5.3. Thecaseofaprofessorinphysics......................................................................................35

5.4. RevealedempiricalpatternsonutilitiesfromacademicR&D...............................36

5.5. ViabilityoftheframeworkforstudyingutilitiesfromacademicR&D...............37

6. Conclusionsandcontributions.....................................................................................................38

6.1. Empiricalcontributions..........................................................................................................40

6.2. Conceptualcontributions.......................................................................................................41

6.3. Implicationsforpolicy.............................................................................................................44

6.4. Areasforfurtherresearch.....................................................................................................46

References.................................................................................................................................................49

xii

1

1. Introduction

Ithaslongbeenrecognisedthatacademicresearchcreatessocietalbenefits(Geiger,

2006).However,perceptionsvaryastowhattheprocessofgeneratingbenefits

encompassesandhowitunfolds.Itmaybetemptingtoapplyasimpleview,expecting

inputsintheformofpublicfundingtogeneratetangibleanddirectoutputs.Thisis

similartofeedingagoose,hopingitwillproducegoldeneggsofsocietaluse.1Some

researchpolicyapproachesexpecttheseeggstoprimarilybeutilitiesrelatedto

commercialisation,suchasspin‐offcompanies,patentsandlicences(Jacobssonetal.,

2013).Whentheseeggsarefewerthanexpected,theresearchisclaimedtobe

insufficientlyuseful.TheSwedishMinisterforEnterprise,AnnieLööf,exemplifiesthis

approach(SverigesRadio,2012,author’stranslation):

“InSweden,weareverygoodatresearchbutverypooratcommercialisation;thatis,

gettingbangforthebuck”

However,othersarguethattheprocessofcreatingutilitiesis“complex,uncertain,

somewhatdisorderly,andsubjecttochangesofmanysorts”(KlineandRosenberg,1986

p.275).Inthissense,creatingsocietalbenefitsfromresearchismorelikesurfingan

unpredictableoceanthanfeedingagoosethatlaysgoldeneggs.Justassurfinginvolves

catchingawaveatpreciselytherightmomentbyinteractingwithanuncontrollable

ocean,creatingsocietalbenefitsfromresearchinvolvestimingandinteractionwithan

ever‐changingsociety.2Researcherscanbuildexcellentcapabilitiesandconductfirst‐

classresearchbutifthetimingiswrongortheoceangoesflat,therush,thatisthe

utility,willbeleftout.Nevertheless,asnewwavesapproach,capabilitiesareneededto

beabletocontinuouslyrespondtochangesintheocean,justasinrelationtosociety.3

Therehasbeengrowinginterestoverthepastseveraldecadesinevaluatingand

improvingtheprocessofgeneratingutilitiesfromacademicresearch(OECD,2009).This

isduetoincreasedexpectationsonuniversitiestocontributetoimprovedglobal

competitivenessinarisingknowledge‐basedeconomy,aswellastotheintroductionof

1ThisanalogyisadoptedfromRip(2003).2ThisanalogyisadoptedfromKurzweil(2005),althoughheappliesittoinvention.3Thisisoftenreferredtoasresponsecapacity,i.e.thecapabilityofacademiatorespondtochangingsocietalneeds(Jacobsson,2002).

2

newpublicmanagementideasinresearchpolicy(Bodenetal.,2006;Druckerand

Goldstein,2007).Worldwide,universitymanagementsandpolicy‐makershavelaunched

numerousinitiativestoenhancetheutilityfromacademicresearch(Moweryand

Sampat,2005).

Howwelookupontheprocessofgeneratingutilitiesfromresearchwillinfluencethe

toolsweusetoevaluateandimproveit.Therefore,realisticrepresentationsofwhatthe

processofgeneratingbenefitsencompasses,andhowitunfolds,areneeded.Failingto

producesuchrepresentationsmayleadtomisguidedexpectationsandefforts.

Itisachallengingtasktoproducetheserepresentations,astheprocessofgenerating

utilitiesis“complex,uncertain,andsomewhatdisorderly”.Thus,itmaybetemptingto

juststartcountinggoldeneggsintheformofspin‐offcompanies,patentsandlicences.

However,thelimitationsofthissimpleapproachtoaccountingforutilitiessoonbecome

apparent.Researchhaspointedtofailuresincapturinglesstangibleandindirect

utilities,accountingfortheinfluencefromsurroundingsettingsandconsideringthe

substantialtimelagsinvolved(e.g.,MartinandTang,2007;NelsonandWinter,1977;

SalterandMartin,2001).4Theselimitationspointtotheneedtocaptureandexplaina

widerangeofutilities,incorporatecontextualinfluencesandallowforanappropriate

timescale.Indeed,therearestudiesembracingsomeoftheseaspects(e.g.,Gibbonsand

Johnston,1974;Mazzoleni,2005;Saxenian,1994),asareapproachesidentifyingawide

rangeofchannels,mechanismsoroutputsfromresearch(e.g.,Cohenetal.,2002;D’Este

andPatel,2007;FaulknerandSenker,1995;Meyer‐KrahmerandSchmoch,1998;

Molas‐Gallartetal.,2002;Pavitt,1998;Salteretal.,2000).However,aframeworkthat

systematicallyaccountsforalloftheseaspectsislacking.

Aframeworkthatappearspromisinginthelightoftheseaspectsisthatoftechnological

innovationsystems(TIS)(Bergeketal.,2008a,b;Carlssonetal.,2002;Carlssonand

Stankiewicz,1991;Hekkertetal.,2007).Itiswidelyusedinstudiesoftechnicalchange.

Itsusehaslatelybeenexploredintheresearchpolicyfield(e.g.,Hellsmarkand

Jacobsson,2009;Jacobsson,2002;Mohamad,2009),althoughtheopportunitiesforthis

fieldhavenotyetbeenfullyexploited.TheTISframeworkenablesaholisticanalysis

4TheseargumentsarefurtherdevelopedinPaperI.

3

throughadescriptivesystemsapproachthatseemssuitableforcapturinglesstangible

utilities.Moreover,itfocusesonkeysubprocessesinthedevelopmentanddiffusionof

innovation,throughwhichutilitiesmaybecapturedandcontextualinfluences

incorporated.5Inaddition,itallowsforcapturinglong‐termandindirectutilities

throughtheinterdependencesbetweensubprocesses.

1.1. Purpose,aimandscope

Thepurposeofthisthesisistoexplorehowutilitiesfromacademicresearchand

developmentcanbecapturedandexplainedusingtheTISapproach.

Thispurposeisaddressedbyconstructingaframeworkfromcombiningexisting

conceptualisationsofhowresearchcreatesutilitiesandempiricallyapplyingitinthree

casestudies.Thethesisaddressesareal‐worldresearchpolicyissuebyofferingan

empiricallyandtheoreticallygroundedframeworkthat,acknowledgingthelimitsof

scienceinrepresentingreality,offersrelevantinsightsfortheissue.6

Bydoingso,thisthesisaimstoenrichtheunderstandinganddebateoftheroleof

academicresearchinsociety,aswellassupportsubsequentactionsbybeneficiaries7

fromthisthesis.Themainbeneficiariesarefoundinthreedomains.First,thisthesis

aimstosupportsoundpolicy‐makingbyinformingpoliticiansandcivilservants.Second,

thethesisaimstosupportacademicsanduniversitymanagementinreflectingon,

improvingandcommunicatingtheutilityoftheresearchconductedatuniversities.

Third,thisthesisaimstocontributetofutureresearchinthefieldofTISandresearch

policy.

Anumberoffeaturessetthescopeofthisthesis.First,itsempiricaldomainis

engineeringandnaturalscienceresearch.ThecasescoverSwedishnanotechnology

research,energyandenvironmentalresearchatauniversityoftechnology,andthe

5Inearlierwork,thesesubprocesseshavebeenreferredtoasfunctionsormerelyprocesses.Thisincludessomeofthepapersinthisthesis.Thetermsubprocessesisusedtodistinguishfromotherusesofthetermprocesses(suchastheresearchprocess).6Researchpolicyisoftenmentionedinrelationtotheadjacentandoverlappingareaofinnovationpolicy.Thisthesisusesthetermresearchpolicybutincludesaspectsofinnovationpolicyrelatedtotheutilityofacademicresearch.Anotherrelatedtermissciencepolicy.Researchpolicyandsciencepolicyareseenassynonymousinthecontextofthisthesisgiventhatitfocusesonacademicresearch.7Inthisthesis,thetermbeneficiaryincludesactorsthatarepositivelyornegativelyinfluencedbyresearch.Asthethesisshows,thisinfluencemaytakemanydifferentformssuchaschangedperceptionsoradoptionofanewtechnology.

4

researchofaphysicsprofessor.Therefore,itsapplicabilityforstudyingthedomainof

socialscienceresearchhasnotyetbeenexplored.8Toreflectthisfocus,thisthesis

prefersthetermR&Dratherthanthewidertermresearch,asthelattermaydraw

attentiontoawidersetofdisciplines.9Second,thisthesisissituatedwithininnovation

studiesineconomics,managementandengineering.However,thereareother

perspectivestoutilityfromacademicR&D,suchassociologyorhistory.Third,thethesis

capturesandexplainsutilities,excludingassessingtheirvalue.10Thisthesisassumes

thatthestudiedtechnologyorknowledgefieldswillyielddesirablesocietal

developments.11Fourth,thecasesinthisthesisareinaSwedishsetting,althoughit

includessomeinternationallinkages.Fifth,thisthesisappliesasystemsperspectivethat

offersawaytounderstandacomplexandcomplicatedphenomenonthatcannotbe

understoodbysubdividingitintoseparatecomponents,studyingtheseinisolation,and

recombiningthem(Ingelstam,2002).Thus,thisthesisassumesthataggregatingoutputs

fromasetofacademicR&Dactivitieswillnotexplaintheirsystemicimpact.Instead,the

wholesystemneedstobeunderstood.

1.2. Theresearchprocess

Thisthesiscontinuesa20‐yearresearchtraditionontheTISconceptatChalmers

UniversityofTechnologyandispartofaresearchprojectconductedwithHalmstadand

LundUniversities(JacobssonandLindholm‐Dahlstrand,2006).Thepurposeofthis

largerprojectistodevelopamethodologytotracetheeffectsofacademicR&Dand

understandthesystemicdeterminantsofthemagnitudeandcharacteroftheseeffects.It

includesfourparts:Conductinganinternationalliteraturereview;developingan

analyticalframework;conductingempiricalstudies;andexplainingthecausal

mechanismsbehindthepatternsobservedbyapplyinganinnovationsystems

8Somesocialscienceelementsinareassuchasenvironmentandenergypolicy,aswellaslife‐cyclemanagement,arecovered.9Forinstance,criminology,linguisticsandhistoryofreligionaredisciplinesverydifferentfromthosestudiedinthisthesis.10Assessingthevalueofutilityiscomplicated,asitdependsontheperspectivesofdifferentstakeholders.Forinstance,whenanacademiccontributestothedevelopmentoftechnologyA,itisofpositivevalueforanactorinterestedinthegrowthofsystemA.However,anactorinterestedinthegrowthofcompetingsystemB,orsimplyopposedtodevelopingtechnologyA,mayperceivethevaluetobenegative.Also,asstakeholderperspectivesvaryovertime,sodoestheperceivedvalueoftheutility.11Thisassumptionisexploredinthefieldoftechnologyassessmentandforesightstudies.Morerecently,scholarshavesuggestedthatthereareopportunitiesinlinkingtheTISframeworkwithtechnologyassessment(e.g.,Bergeketal.,2008b;FogelbergandSandén,2008;WeberandRohracher,2012).

5

perspective.Aswillbecomeapparent,thisthesiscontributestoallfourpartsofthe

project,butissupplementedbytheworkofothersintheproject(e.g.,Gabrielssonetal.,

2013;Jacobssonetal.,2013;LawtonSmithetal.,2013).

Asmentioned,theresearchprocessincludesconstructingaframeworkbycombining

existingliteratureandempiricallyapplyingittothreecases.Figure1showsanoverview

oftheresearchprocess,includingreferencestocorrespondingsectionsofthischapter.

Thetwotheoreticalpointsofdeparture,thedomainsofresearchpolicyandTIS,are

illustratedbyrectangles.Fromthese,theframeworkisconstructedinfoursteps,

illustratedasovals.First,ataxonomyofsevenactivitiesspringingfromorembedded

withinacademicR&Discompiledfromasetofkeyreferences.12Second,theactivities

arelinkedwithsevenkeyinnovationsubprocessesintheTISapproachinorderto

understandthetypesofdirectutilitiesthattheseactivitiesgeneratebyinteractingwith

thesurroundingsetting.Thisthesisdefinesautilityastheimpactofanactivityonan

innovationprocess.Third,indirectutilitiesarecapturedintheformofsequencesof

impact.Thesearepatternsthatunfoldasimpactsaretracedbyinterdependences

betweeninnovationsubprocesses.Finally,theindividualimpactpatternsofresearchers,

orresearchgroups,whichemergeinthethreefirststeps,areexploredinatypologyof

sevenrolesandsomemeta‐rolesthatresearchersenactinmakingscienceuseful.13

12Theconceptof‘activitiesspringingfromorembeddedwithinacademicR&D’capturesthefactthatthethesisfocusesonutilitiesfromacademicR&D.Thephrase‘springingfromorembeddedwithin’attemptstoincludeactivities,inadditiontothatofconductingresearch,whicharerelevantforcreatingutilitiesandarecloselyconnectedtoconductingresearch.Ifreferringtothisas‘whatacademicresearchersdo’orsolely‘academicactivities’,thereferencebacktoacademicR&Dislost.13Atthispoint,thereadermightwonderaboutthefrequentappearanceofthenumberseven,whichiswhyitmightbeofinteresttoknowthatcreatinglistsofsevenelementswasnotadeliberatefocus.

6

FIGURE1.THERESEARCHPROCESSOFTHETHESIS.NUMBERSINDICATETHECORRESPONDINGSUBSECTIONANDROMANNUMBERSINBOLDITALICSINDICATETHECORRESPONDINGPAPER.

Threein‐depthexploratorycasestudiesareconductedtoexploreandillustratethe

framework.ThefirstfocussesonSwedishnanotechnologyresearchandthesecondon

theChalmersenergyinitiative(CEI),whichisastrategicresearchareaataSwedish

universityoftechnology.Thesetwocasesexploreandillustratethefirsttwostepsin

constructingtheframework:IdentifyingactivitiesandlinkingthemwithTIS

subprocesses.ThecaseofCEIalsoillustratessomesequencesofimpact,whichisstep

threeinthedevelopmentoftheframework.ThedashedarrowinFigure1illustrates

this.Thethirdcasefocussesonaphysicsprofessor,withanemphasisonillustrating

sequencesofimpact.Finally,theCEIcaseillustratesthetypologyofroles.Figure1

showsthesecasesasbooksplacedaccordingtothestepuponwhichtheyfocus.

Developingtheframeworkhasgeneratedempiricalandconceptualcontributions,

implicationsforresearchpolicyandareasoffurtherresearch.Thisisillustratedbythe

roundedrectangleinFigure1.Theseconclusionsandcontributionsfeedbackintothe

twopointsofdeparture:TheresearchpolicydomainandtheTISconcept.

7

1.3. Someintroductorynotesonmethod

Manypartsofthisintroductorychapterdiscussmethodologicalissues.Section3deals

withissuesconcernedwithdevelopingtheframeworkfromexistingliterature.Section4

discussesissuesrelatedtoconductingcasestudies.Somegeneralmethodologicalissues

relatedtotheparticularnatureoftheresearchtaskofthisthesisarediscussedbelow.

First,thisthesisappliesaqualitativeresearchapproach,whichispreferredin

exploratoryandexplanatoryresearch(MarshallandRossman,2010).Thethesisis

exploratorybecauseitinvestigatesincompletelyunderstoodphenomenainafieldthat

lacksanestablishedtheory.Itisexplanatorysinceitattemptstoexplainpatternsof

interactionrelatedtoutilitiesfromacademicR&D.

Second,thethesis’pointofdepartureisapragmaticresearchpolicyissue.Practitioners

arethemainbeneficiariesofthiswork.Inparalleltoconductingresearch,theauthor

workedasapolicyanalystpartlyinvolvedinthestudiedprocesses.Thesefeaturesare

consistentwiththoseofparticipatoryactionresearch,wheretheresearcherseeksto

changeandimproveprofessionalpractice,oftenasapractitioner.Inlinewith

participatoryactionresearch,thisthesisaimstostaycommittedtothelocalreality,

producinghighlydescriptiveaccountsofcontext‐dependentphenomenathatmatterfor

creatingappropriatepolicies,ratherthandevelopingtheoretical,generalizable

constructs(MarshallandRossman,2010).

Third,asthethesisconcernsmethodologicaldevelopment,itisnecessarytoreflecton

generalizability,thatis,theexternalvalidityofthedevelopedframeworkindifferent

fieldsandsettings.Thisthesisdevelopsaframeworkbyamixed‐methodsapproach.It

iterativelymovesbetweencombiningconceptsandmodelsfromestablishedresearch

areasandconductingdescriptiveempiricalstudies.14Thesetwomethodsdiffer

concerninggeneralizability.Thethesistiesintoresearchareas(theTISconceptand

relevantresearchpolicyliterature)andcanbegeneralizabletoavarietyofsettings

wheretheseareasarerelevant(MarshallandRossman,2010).However,issuesof

generalizabilityoffindingsfromtheempiricalstudiesrequireabitmoreattention.

14Thisapproachhassimilaritiesto‘systematiccombining’(DuboisandGadde,2002).

8

Therearetwoschoolsofthoughtconcerningthegeneralizabilityofcasestudies

(Eisenhardt,1989).Oneisdescriptive,focusingonofferingrichaccounts.Theotheris

positivist,focusingonproducinggeneralizabletheory.However,therearemiddle

groundswherevaryingdegreesofeffortaremadetostructurefindingsandassignthem

differentconstructs,whichinturnmaybringnewinsights.Indeed,richdescriptionsof

singlecaseshavebeenprovencriticaltothedevelopmentofevenresearchareas

dominatedbypositivisticmethods(Flyvbjerg,2006).Regardingthecasestudiesinthis

thesis,therearemotivesforsearchingformiddlegroundsthatleantowardthe

descriptiveschoolsofthought.Onemotiveisthatthisthesisconcernsparticipatory

actionresearch.Italsofocusesonsociotechnicalphenomenainvolvinginteraction

betweenactorsinasetting,whichishighlycomplexandcomplicated.Therearetoo

manycomponentsandrelationshipstodisentangleandbreakdownaspecific

phenomenonintopredeterminednaturallaws(Ingelstam,2002;MarshallandRossman,

2010;Sismondo,2004).

Thesystemsperspectiveinthisthesisoffersasuitablemiddlegroundthatattemptsto

capturecomplexandcomplicatedphenomenabyproposinga“wayofthinking”

(Ingelstam,2002).Thenumberandlevelofconstructsusedtocaptureaphenomenon

needtobesufficientlydetailedtogiveagoodunderstanding,butstillbefeasiblefor

analysisandkeepingtheoverallbigpictureofthephenomenon.Unlikepositivistic

studies,resultsfromasystemsstudydonotprovidedirectandstraight‐forward

answersbutratherargumentsthatlaythegroundfordebatewhosebearingdependson

thespecificsituation(SandénandHarvey,2008).Thisblurstheboundarybetweenthe

studyandtheuseofitsresults,requiringacloseinteractionbetweenresearchersand

practitioners.Thisisakeyargumentforparticipatoryactionresearch,suchasinthis

thesis.

Theseargumentsimplythatsystemsstudies,suchasintheempiricalcasesofthisthesis,

aremoretransferablethangeneralizable.Transferabilityisthewayinwhichasetof

findingsare“usefultoothersinsimilarsituations,withsimilarresearchquestionsor

questionsofpractice”(MarshallandRossman,2010,p.201).Theburdenofproofforthe

applicabilityfindingstoanothersituationmainlyfallsonthosemakingthattransfer,

ratherthanontheresearcher.Theburdenoftheresearcheristofacilitateforothersto

seethetransferabilityoffindingsbyconductingasoundsystemsstudy.

9

1.4. Overviewofthepapersandtheircontributions

Thethesiscontainsfivepapers.TheromannumbersinFigure1illustratehowthe

papersdealwiththedifferentstepsintheresearchprocess.PaperIisconceptual,and

identifiestheactivitiesandlinksthemtoTISsubprocessesthroughanextensive

literaturereview.PapersIIandIIIapplytheframeworktotwocases:Swedish

nanotechnologyresearchandChalmersEnergyInitiative.PaperIVintroducessequences

ofimpactandillustratesthiswithacasestudyofaphysicsprofessoratChalmers.Paper

Vintroducesataxonomyofrolesthatacademicsenact,illustratingitwithdatafromthe

studyofChalmersEnergyInitiative.Table1summarisesthepapers.

10

TABLE1.SUMMARYOFTHEPAPERS

Paper:TitleandType AimsandMethods ContributionstotheFramework

MainContributions(inadditiontoconceptualdevelopment)

I.TowardsasystemicframeworkforcapturingandexplainingtheeffectsofacademicR&DType:Conceptualwithaliteraturereview

To(a)Develop aframeworkforcapturing,explainingandassessingtheeffectsofacademicR&D,and(b)Ascertainwhetherthestrongbeliefincommercialisationasthekeymechanismformakingscienceusefuliswarrantedbyapplyingthisframeworktotheliterature.ThisisdonebyconductingaliteraturereviewthatextendstheTISframework.Theextendedframeworkisthenusedtointerpretalargebodyofresearchpolicyliterature.

Takingthefirsttwostepsindevelopingtheframework.

Researchpolicyimplications:Challengingthestrongbeliefinacademicentrepreneurship,patentingandlicensingascentralmechanismsformakingscienceusefulbydemonstratingthemultidimensionalimpactsofacademicR&D.

II.Identifying,explainingandimprovingtheeffectsofacademicR&D:ThecaseofnanotechnologyinSwedenType:Casestudy

TocontributetotheliteratureontheimpactofacademicR&DbyapplyingadevelopmentoftheTISframework(theframeworkpresentedinPaperI)tothecaseofnanotechnologyresearchinSweden.Thisin‐depthcasestudyislargelybasedoninterviewsandreports.

Exploringandillustratingthefirsttwostepsoftheframework,asintroducedinPaperI,inacasestudy.

Nanotechpolicyimplications: Theimpactofacademicactivitiesisdiverseandsignificantbutconstrainedlargelybyfactorsbeyondtheinfluenceofacademia.Researchpolicyimplications:IllustratingthediversityofutilitiesandchallengingthebeliefofpoorimpactofacademicR&D.

III.Themanywaysofacademicresearchers:HowscienceismadeusefulatauniversityType:casestudy

Addressingthreeresearchquestions:WhatpatternscanbeidentifiedwithrespecttohowscienceismadeusefulinanenergyresearchgroupataSwedishuniversity;howcanunderstandingthesepatternsimproveassessmentmethods;andwhatistherelevanceofthesepatternstothebeliefofpoorimpactfromacademicR&D.Thecasestudyislargelybasedoninterviews,butalsoincludesapatentanalysis.

Exploringandillustratingthefirsttwostepsand,tosomeextent,stepthreeoftheframework,inacasestudy.

Researchpolicyimplications: Contributetothedebateonthedesignofanevidence‐basedresearchpolicywithappropriateroutinesforevaluationandperformanceassessment.

IV.TracingsequencesofimpactfromacademicR&D:Anin‐depthstudyofaprofessorinphysicsType:Conceptualwithanillustratingcasestudy

Totraceandcharacterisesequencesofimpact fromacademicR&D,aswellascontributetodevelopingamethodologyforcapturingtheseimpacts.Thisismainlyaninterview‐based,in‐depthcaseofaprofessor.

ExtendingtheframeworkinPaperIwithathirdstepandillustratingitwithacasestudy.

Researchpolicyimplications: Emphasisingtheimportanceofaccountingforsequencesofimpact,usingadecades‐longtimescaletounderstandthefulleffectsofacademicR&D.

V.Enactingknowledgetransfer:Acontextdependentand‘role‐based’typologyforcapturingutilityfromuniversityresearchType:Conceptualwithillustratingcases

Toprovideinsightsintohowacademicsmakeknowledgeusefulbyintroducingatypologyofrolesthatresearchersenactinenactingknowledge.ThisisachievedbybuildingontheframeworkinPaperIandusingtwoofthein‐depthcasestudiesincludedinPaperIII.

Extendingthepreviousthreestepsintheframeworkwithafourthstepandillustratingitintwocasestudies.

Researchpolicyimplications: Publicationperformanceandexantedemandforrelevanceisinsufficienttopredictandpromoteutility.Understandinginteractionsandcomplementaritiesbetweendifferentresearchersorresearchgroup,aswellasbetweenthemandthesurroundingsystem,iscentralforunderstandingtheutility.

11

1.5. Outlineoftheintroductorychapter

AsFigure1shows,Section2elaboratesontheconceptualpointsofdeparture.Section3

developstheanalyticalframeworkofthisthesisinfoursteps.First,theactivitiesare

introduced(3.1),followedbytheirinclusionintotheTISframework(3.2).Theconcept

ofsequencesofimpactisintroduced(3.3)andthesectionendswiththetypologyofthe

sevenrolesandmeta‐rolesthatresearchersenactinmakingresearchuseful(3.4).Each

subsectioninSection3includesthecorrespondingmethodusedtotakethestep.Section

3endsbyexplainingthemultidimensional,dynamic,context‐dependentaspectsofthe

framework(3.5).Section4discussesthemethodsusedintheempiricalstudies,while

Section5presentstheempiricalfindings,includingconclusionswithrespectto

empiricalpatterns(5.4),aswellasreflectionsontheviabilityoftheframeworkfor

studyingacademicutility(5.5).Section6concludesthisintroductorychapterofthe

thesisanddiscussesempiricalcontributions(6.1),conceptualcontributions(6.2),

implicationsforpolicy(6.3)andareasoffurtherresearch(6.4).

2. Pointsofdeparture

Thisthesishastwopointsofdeparture:Theresearchpolicyliteratureaddressingthe

utilityofacademicR&DandtheTISliterature.Thissectionbrieflyoutlinestheseto

explainthebackgroundoftheissuesthisthesisattemptstoaddressandtointroducethe

foundationsofthedevelopedframework.

2.1. UtilityofacademicR&Dinresearchpolicyliterature

Asearlyas1776,AdamSmithrecognisedtheroleofresearchinsocietaldevelopment

whenintroducingtheconceptofdivisionoflabour:

“[I]mprovements[inmachinery]havebeenmadeby[…]thosewhoarecalledphilosophers

ormenofspeculation,whosetradeitisnottodoanything,buttoobserveeverything;and

who,uponthataccount,areoftencapableofcombiningtogetherthepowersofthemost

distantanddissimilarobjects.Intheprogressofsociety,philosophyorspeculation

becomes,likeeveryotheremployment,theprincipalorsoletradeandoccupationofa

particularclassofcitizens”(Smith,2007,p.15).

IdeasduringtheIndustrialRevolutionwereconsistentwithSmith,asresearchand

technologicalprogresswereassignedprominentroles(PålssonSyll,1998).

12

ContemporarytotheIndustrialRevolution,KarlMarxincludedscienceintheeconomic

systemandrecogniseditasasignificantcontributortoproductivitygrowth(Marx,

2001).

Despitetheseearlyrecognitionsinclassicaleconomics,thefocusbytheendofthe19th

centurywasonexplaininggrowththroughallocationofcapital,labourandland.This

wasaconsequenceofthediffusionofsocalledneoclassicaleconomics(Ayres,1988).

Scienceandtechnologicalprogresswereconsideredexogenoustotheeconomyand

neglected.Sciencewasperceivedasobjectiveandinfallible,andwasexpectedtobe

drivenbycuriosityandthequestforexcellence,unrestrictedbysociety’stransient

needs(Bodenetal.,2006).15Consequently,therewaslittleinterestinexploringthe

contributionfromsciencetosocietaldevelopment.

Inparallel,theeconomistJosephSchumpeterquestionedtheneoclassicalideasand

combinedeconomics,sociologyandhistorytostudytheroleofinnovationineconomic

andsocialchange(FagerbergandVerspagen,2009).InspiredbyMarx,Schumpeter

arguedthatinnovationandtechnicalprogressareendogenoustotheeconomyand

significantforgrowth(Schumpeter,2008).Nevertheless,heassignedsciencealess

prominentrolethanthatofinnovation.16DespiteSchumpeter’slifelongadvocacyfor

innovationasadrivingfactorforgrowth,hisinfluencewasweakwhenhediedin1950

(FagerbergandVerspagen,2009).

However,the1950sbroughttherediscoveryoftheimportanceofscienceandtechnical

progressforsocietaldevelopment.Neoclassicalgrowththeoristsshowedthatgrowthin

productivitywaslargelyduetotechnicalprogressbyintroducinggrowthaccounting.

Thisexploredrelationshipsbetweenaggregateinputs,whichincludedscienceand

technology,andoutputs(PålssonSyll,1998).Inparallel,academiccontributionsto

innovationsduringWWIIandtheColdWar,suchasnuclearphysicstotheManhattan

project,spurredpolicyexpectationsforsciencetoleadtotechnologicalsupremacy

(FagerbergandVerspagen,2009;Geiger,2008).Thefamoussciencebureaucrat

VannevarBushcomparedsciencewith‘anendlessfrontier’ofopportunities,

15Thisviewonacademiacorrespondstothe‘mode1’knowledgeproductioninGibbonsetal.(1994).16Schumpeterdistinguishedbetweeninvention,anactofintellectualcreativity,andinnovationanddiffusionwhichwereeconomicacts.Heestablishedthatinnovationdoesnotnecessaryincludeinvention,andthatinventionmayincludethedevelopmentofscientificknowledge,butdoesnotnecessarilydoso.

13

emphasisingitslargepotentialforbringingbenefits(Godin,2006).Theseexpectations

ledtoawaveofgenerous,publiclyfunded,large‐scalescienceprojects.Advocates

continued,though,toclaimtheinfallibilityofscience,andresearchfundingwas

implicitlyassumedtoautomaticallyprovidesocietalbenefits(Rip,2011).Thefocuswas

onatechnologypush;feedingthegooseandwaitingforittolaygoldeneggs.

Despitetheserediscoveries,thedominantviewofhowresearchwasusefulassumed

thatbasicresearchfeedsintoappliedresearchanddevelopment,whichinturnfeeds

innovation,productionanddiffusionasalinearone‐wayprocess(Godin,2006).This

impliesthat(a)researchonlyplaysaroleinaninitialphaseasinputtoinnovation,(b)

thereisnofeedbackbetweenresearchandotherpartsoftheprocessand(c)specific

volumesofhigh‐qualityresearch(input)automaticallyresultincorrespondingvolumes

ofinventionandinnovation(output).Thislinearviewlargelyjustifiedgovernment

supportofscienceandisstill,tovariousdegrees,heldbymanyscientistsandpolicy‐

makers(Gibbonsetal.,2011).

Nevertheless,therediscoveriescreatedaneedforadeeperunderstandingofhow

sciencewasmadeuseful,settingoffarevivalofSchumpeter’sideas(Fagerberg,2003).

Manystartedtostudyinnovationandtechnicalchangeasendogenousfeaturesofthe

economy(e.g.,Levinetal.,1987;NelsonandWinter,1977;Schmookler,1966).

Criticismsofthelinearviewofinnovationwereraised(Godin,2006).Awell‐known

exampleisthatofKlineandRosenberg(1986),whointroducedthechain‐linkedmodel

ofinnovation,whichshiftedthefocusfromsciencetoinnovationandemphasisedthe

interactiveandcontinuousroleofresearchasoneofmanyconstituentsinaprocessthat

includednumerousfeedbacks.17

Bodenetal.,(2006)suggestthatthe1970sbroughtnewinfluencestotheresearch

policyscene.First,ashiftinperceptionsoccurredfromscienceasobjectiveto

relativistic,whichquestionedthepriorinfallibleviewofscience.Second,sciencewas

expectedtocontributetoeconomicwell‐beingandcompetitivenessmainlythrough

directlinkstocommercialisationprocesses.Third,newpublicmanagementideaswere

introducedintoresearchpolicy,declaringthatmodernstateswerefailingbecauseof

17Thispresentsanextendedviewontheroleofresearchthatalsoincludeslinear‐modelcaseswhereresearchmaywellonlybeaninputtoinnovation.

14

theirunmanageablesizeandunjustifiableresourceconsumption.Theanswerwasto

downsizethestateandallowmarketstorunfree.Also,newpublicmanagement

demandedmeasurableresults.

Asaconsequence,politicalinterestsshiftedtoschemesthatdirectlylinkedscienceto

societalneeds(OECD,2012).Thefocusonutilitiesrelatedtocommercialisation(suchas

spin‐offcompanies,patentsandlicences)increased,andsodidthecallforperformance

andoutputmeasurements(Jacobssonetal.,2013).Muchattentionwasgiventogrowth

accounting,largelybuildingonthelinearmodel(inputandoutputindicators).Although

thelimitationsofthistypeofmeasurementwereacknowledgedearlyon(Nelson,1964),

itwasrootedinthemeasurementstandardsofinfluentialorganisationssuchasthe

OECDandtheEU(Godin,2006).Thisnarrowfocusonmeasurementsand

commercialisationwasoneofthefactorsstirringawidespreadbeliefthatpublicly

fundedresearchinEuropewasinsufficientlyusefulcomparedtoresearchintheU.S.

(Jacobssonetal.,2013).18Thisisoftenframedasaparadox;astrongsciencebaseor

extensiveresearchfundingisnottransformedintoeconomicgrowth.Inotherwords,

therearetoofewgoldeneggs.Althoughmanyhavepointedtoweaknessesinthe

assumptionsthatmakeupthisbeliefandtothelackofempiricalevidence,ithas

prevailed.Thepersistenceofthisbeliefisoneofthefactorsthatmotivatethisthesis.

Thecurrenteffortofpolicytolinksciencetosocietalneeds,increasethe

commercialisationofresearchanddevelopmeasurementsofperformancehasattracted

theinterestsofmanyscholarsineconomics,sociology,history,anthropologyand

management.Thishaspavedthewayforanextensivesetofmultidisciplinary,closely

related,largelyoverlappingtopicsofrelevancetothisthesis.Thecentralonesare

discussedbelow.

Afirstconceptisthatoftechnologytransfer.Itgrewoutofconsiderablypolicyinterestin

crossnationalanddomestictransferoftechnology,whichalsocametoincludethat

betweenuniversitiesandindustry(Bozeman,2000).19Inlinewiththisthesis,Bozeman

18ThisbeliefhasalsobeenarticulatedinthecaseofSweden.19TechnologytransferconcernsasubsetofutilitiesfromacademicR&D,butcoversadditionalaspectsoutofthescopeofthisthesis.Theinterestintheconceptpeakedaroundtheturnofthecentury.AquicksearchinScopus(www.scopus.com)showsthatpublicationsonthisconcepthavedeclinedsince2008.

15

(2000)concludesthattechnologytransferincludesnumerousconcurrentprocessesand

thatitsimpactsoftenarevariedanddifficulttoseparatefromotherinfluences.

Asecondconceptisuniversity‐industryrelations.Studieshaveexploredthenatureand

benefitsofinteractionsbetweenuniversitiesandindustries(e.g.,Hughes,2006;Laursen

andSalter,2004;Mansfield,1998;Saxenian,1994;Scottetal.,2001),andthe

determinantsforsuchinteractions(e.g.,D’EsteandPatel,2007;Mansfield,1995).

Severaltaxonomieshavebeenpresented(e.g.,BonaccorsiandPiccaluga,1994;Cohenet

al.2002;FaulknerandSenker,1995;Meyer‐KrahmerandSchmoch,1998).The

literatureonuniversity‐industryrelationshipsoverlapsextensivelywiththeconceptsof

academicengagement,whichPerkmannetal.(2013,p.424)defineas“knowledge‐

relatedcollaborationbyacademicresearcherswithnon‐academicorganisations,”and

third‐streamactivitieswhichmainlyconcernsthe“generation,use,applicationand

exploitationofknowledgeandotheruniversitycapabilitiesoutsideacademic

environments”(Molas‐Gallartetal.,2002,p.2).

Athirdconceptisthatofuniversityentrepreneurshiporacademiccommercialisation,

whichhasbeengivenmorescholarlyatentionthanacademicengagement(Perkmannet

al.,2013;Rothaermeletal.,2007).Researchfocusesonuniversitiesasentrepreneurial

organisations(e.g.,BramwellandWolfe,2008)orthecreationandimpactofacademic

spin‐offs(e.g.,LindholmDahlstrand,2008;Shane,2004).Academiccommercialisationis

anoutcomeorsubsetofthewiderconceptofacademicengagement(Perkmannetal.,

2013).

Afourthconceptisfoundwithintheresearchevaluationliterature.Itstudiesthesocietal

andeconomicimpactsofacademicR&D,usingeconometrics,surveysandcasestudies

(SalterandMartin,2001).Somescholarshavefocusedonevaluatingthecapacityof

specificresearchprogramstoachievesocialgoals(e.g.,BozemanandSarewitz,2011),

whileothersfocusonthenatureandextentofbenefitsfromresearchingeneral(Martin

andTang,2007;Pavitt,1998).

Fifth,theconceptsofmodesofknowledgeproduction(Gibbonsetal.,1994)andthetriple

helix(EtzkowitzandLeydesdorff,2000)focusontherolesofuniversitiesinknowledge

productionthatincludecooperationwithindustry,policyandsocietyatlarge.Theselink

academiatolargersocietalneeds.

16

Innovationsystemsisanotherconcept.DrawingonSchumpeter‘sideas,itembracesthe

viewofresearchasacontinuous,interactingpartofasystemicprocessofinnovation

anddiffusion.Theinnovationsystemsconceptfocusesontheinteractionandonhowit

isconditionedbysocial,institutionalandpoliticalfactors(FagerbergandVerspagen,

2009).Theconcepthasbeenappliedusingnational,regional,sectoralandtechnological

scopes.Thenationalinnovationsystem(NIS)conceptisacknowledgedbypolicyactors

suchastheOECDandtheUN(Sharif,2006).ThepioneerswereFreeman(1987;1994),

whofocusedontheinteractionbetweenscience,technology,innovationandgrowth,

andLundvall(2010a),20whoemphasisedtheimportanceoftheinteractiveprocessesof

learningbetweenactors.AlthoughtheNISconceptemergedfromempiricalattemptsto

describenationalcharacteristics,laterdevelopmentsfocusedontheoreticalelements

(Lundvall,2010b).However,thesedevelopmentsarenotcentredonsearchingfor

generaltheories,butoncapturingreal‐lifesocietalphenomena(Fagerbergand

Verspagen,2009).Theregionalinnovationsystemconceptfocusesongeographical

definitions(e.g.,AsheimandCoenen,2006),andthesectoralinnovationsystemconcept

isdefinedaroundanindustryorsector(e.g.,BreschiandMalerba,2013).Ourattention

nowturnstothetechnologicalinnovationsystem.

2.2. Thetechnologicalinnovationsystemconcept21

TheTISconceptsharesmanyintellectualpointsofdeparturewithotherinnovation

systemconcepts,suchastheuseofideasfromsystemstheoryandevolutionarybiology

tounderstandphenomenainsocialsystems(Carlssonetal.,2010;Fagerberg,2003;

Ingelstam,2002).TheTISconceptemergedduringthe1980soutofacritiqueagainst

growthaccountingschemes,asenseofeconomiccrisisthatincludedconcernsabout

Swedishcompetitivenessandstronglinksbetweenpolicy‐makers,practitionersand

scholars(Carlssonetal.,2010;Sharif,2006).22Theconceptwasanoutcomefroma

policyinitiatedSwedishresearchprojectthatbroughttogetheragroupofscholarsfrom

thefieldsofeconomics,engineering,managementandsociology(Carlssonetal.,2010).

Consequently,theTISconcepthasdiverseintellectualfoundations.Inadditiontothe

aforementionedinfluencessharedwiththeNISconcept,inspirationcamefrom20Theoriginalversionofthisbookwaspublishedin1992.21ThissubsectionlargelydrawsfromSubsection2.1.inPaperIV.22AlthoughtheNISapproachdevelopedoutofsimilarcircumstances,theNISandTISapproachesdevelopedratherindependently.

17

Dahmén’swork(1988)on‘developmentblocks,’whichemphasisedthedynamicnature

ofeconomicdevelopmentandtheimportanceofunderstandingentrepreneurial

activitiesatthemicrolevel.Anothercontributioncamefromthe‘networkschool’of

industrialmarketing.Thismicrolevelapproachcontributedtothecentralnetworks

aspectinsystemsthinkingbyemphasisingtheimportanceoflong‐termrelationships

thatincludedlearning,confidenceandtrust(Håkansson,1989).23TheTISconceptlinked

microlevelactivitiestomacrolevelimpactsbydrawingonmicroperspectivesto

understandthemesolevelprocessesthatunderpinmacroeconomicgrowth.

IncontrasttotheNISapproach,theTISconcepttakesintoaccountfactorsthatare

uniquetoaknowledgefield.IntheTISconcept’searlydevelopmentstages,itbecame

clearthatalthoughnational‐levelfeaturesweresignificant,diversetechnologicalareas

includeddifferentsettingsanddynamics(Carlssonetal.,2010).24Consequently,aTISis

delineatedaroundaknowledgefield(suchasnanotechnology)orproduct(suchaswind

turbines)andincludesaninteractinggroupofcomponents(Bergeketal.,2008a;Bergek

etal.,2008b;Sandénetal.,2008).Thesecomponentsareactors(suchasfirmsor

universities),thetechnology(suchasartefactsorcodedandembodiedknowledge),

institutions(legalandregulatoryaspects,cultureandbeliefs)andnetworks(suchas

politicalorlearningnetworks).Thesestructuralelements,withexogenousfactorssuch

asfinancialorenvironmentalcrises,shapesystemdynamics.Thedistinctionbetweena

system’sendogenouscomponentsandexogenousfactorsisgradual,fromatruly

exogenouseventsuchasanaturaldisastertoendogenouselementsdeeplyinterwoven

throughnumerousfeedbackloops.Givenasettimescale,endogenouselementshavea

moreintensecircularinteraction(feedback),whileexogenousfactorshaveminor

circularinteraction(MarkardandTruffer,2008;Sandénetal.,2008).Nonetheless,the

one‐wayinfluencefromanexogenousfactoronaTISmaybesubstantial.

TogainabetterunderstandingofTISdynamics,the‘functionaldynamics’ofTIS

approachwasdeveloped,buildingonaschemeofkeysubprocessesinthelargerprocess

23ArelatedandinfluentialperspectiveforTISwastheaforementionedinteractiveprocessesoflearning(Lundvall,2010a).24Anadherentconcepttosectorial,regionalandtechnologicalinnovationsystemsisthatofbusinessclusters(Porter,1998).Thesebusinessorindustryclustersincludebusinessco‐locationandunderlinestheimportanceofeconomicgeographicaspects,suchaslocalizedknowledgeflows,relationships,networksandincentives,forgainingglobalcompetitiveadvantages.Thesesystemicaspectsarewellinlinewiththecoreideasintheinnovationsystemsconcept.

18

ofinnovationanddiffusion(Bergeketal.,2008a,b;Hekkertetal.,2007;Jacobssonand

Bergek,2004;JohnsonandJacobsson,2001).Thisthesisusesaslightmodificationof

thisapproach,focusingonthesubprocesses(orfunctions)inBergeketal.(2008a).25

TABLE2.KEYSUBPROCESSESOFINNOVATION

Influenceonthedirectionofsearchistheprocessbywhichnewactorsareattractedto,anddirectedwithin,asystembyvisions,perceivedgrowthpotential,policyincentives,technicalbreakthroughs/bottlenecks,requirementsfromleadingcustomersorbusinesscrises.

Legitimationisaprocessinfluencedbysociopoliticalactionscreatingacceptanceandattractivenessforatechnology,applicationorindustry.Thisimpliesovercomingliabilityofnewnessandacquiringpoliticalstrength.

Marketformationincludesthedevelopmentprocessofniche,bridgingandmassmarkets.Thisevolvesascustomersarticulatetheirdemandorascompaniesintroducemarket‐changingproducts.

Entrepreneurialexperimentationincludesthedevelopmentofnewopportunitiesandappliedknowledgebytestingnewconcepts,applicationsandmarkets.Itimpliesmaterialisationofknowledge,suchasdevelopingnewproducts,processesororganisationalforms.

Resourcemobilisationrelatestofinancialandhumancapital,aswellascomplementaryassets.

Knowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionincludescreation,diffusionandcombinationofknowledgeinthesystem.

Socialcapitaldevelopmentistheprocessbywhichsocialrelationsarecreatedandmaintained.Theserelationsincludetrust,dependence,mutualrecognition,authorityandsharednorms.Thisprocessenablessystem‐levelactivities,suchasthebuild‐upofnetworksandcollectiveactions.

ElaborationonBergek etal.(2008a)andPaper I,presentedinPaperIV.26

Thesesubprocessesdescribehowthesystemworks.Forexample,increased

legitimationofatechnology,suchassolarcells,throughnewregulationsandthe

climate‐changedebate,mayinfluencethedirectionofsearchofanactorthatthenenters

thefield.Thismayextendnetworks,pavingthewayforsocialcapitaldevelopment.The

networksmaydevelopanddiffusenewknowledgethatleadstoatechnological

breakthroughwhichsubsequentlycreatesexpectationsandinfluencesthedirectionof

searchofnewactorsthatareattractedtothefield.

25Themodificationconcernsthesubprocessdevelopmentofpositiveexternalities,whichisreplacedwithsocialcapitaldevelopment.Thisisbecausedevelopmentofpositiveexternalitiesworkslargelythroughothersubprocesses.Forinstance,itincludesthedevelopmentofpooledlabourmarketsandknowledgespilloversthatareaspectsofhumanresourcemobilisationandknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion.However,italsoincludesnetworkingaspectsnotcoveredbyothersubprocesses.Theseareincludedinsocialcapitaldevelopment,whichispresentedinPaperIV.26ThiselaborationisalsopresentedinPaperIII,butsincePaperIVwasproducedfirst,theelaborationinPaperIVismoredetailed.

19

ThisTISapproachhasbeenusedtostudythedevelopmentanddiffusionofnew

technologies,withastrongfocusonenergy,overthepastdecade.Theemphasiswason

understandingchallengesforsystemgrowthintermsofweaknessesthatmaybe

explainedbyspecificblockingmechanismswithinoroutsidethesystem.Theseblocking

mechanismsmayguidepolicythataimstosupportaspecifictechnology.27

Recently,theTISapproachhasbeenutilisedinthedomainofresearchpolicytostudy

theroleofacademiainthedynamicsofspecifictechnologicalfields.Forexample,

HellsmarkandJacobsson(2009)illustratehowanAustrianprofessorconducting

researchongasifiedbiomassstronglyinfluencedresourcemobilisation,entrepreneurial

experimentationandknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion.Thisresultedinanextensive

build‐upofthenationaltechnologybaseandknowledgenetworks,forwhichAustria

gainedinternationalrecognition.Mohamad(2009)givesanotherexamplebyshowing

howtwoSingaporeanuniversitiespioneeredintheareaoffuelcells,developinga

knowledgebaseandmobilisinghumanresourcesthatwereessentialfortheinnovation

system.Researchersalsoextensivelyengagedinnetworkingactivitiesandparticipated

indiverseadvisoryboardsandpanelsthatstrengthenedlegitimationandinfluencedthe

directionofsearchofpolicyandindustry.

Theseexamplesillustratehowacademiainfluencessubprocessesofinnovationand,

therefore,contributetosystemdynamics.ThisthesiswillnowexplorehowTIScanbe

extendedtostudytheacademicutilitiesfromacademicR&D.

3. AframeworkforcapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D

Thissectionintroducestheextensionofthe‘functionaldynamics’ofTISthatthe

frameworkofthisthesisencompasses.Theextensionismadeinfoursteps,whichare

presentedincorrespondingsubsections.Figure2showsthecompleteframework.It

includesthestructuralelements,subprocessesandexogenousfactorsfromtheTIS

approach,andtheextendedpartswithcorrespondingsubsections.

27Bergeketal.(2008a)offersaschemeforanalysingfunctionaldynamicsoftechnologicalinnovationsystemswhereidentifyingblockingmechanismsisafinalstep.ThisstepwasincludedintheanalysisinPaperII.

20

FIGURE2.THEFRAMEWORKOFTHETHESIS:THE‘FUNCTIONALDYNAMICS’OFTISEXTENDEDWITHTHEIMPACTOFACTIVITIESONSUBPROCESSES,SEQUENCESOFIMPACTANDAROLE‐BASEDTYPOLOGY.NUMBERSINDICATECORRESPONDINGSUBSECTIONS.

ThefirststepspecifiesactivitiesspringingfromorembeddedwithinacademicR&Dand

thesecondlinkstheseactivitieswiththekeyinnovationsubprocessesinaTIS,

establishingdirectimpacts.Thesetwostepsfocusonacademia’sparticularcontribution

asanactor(structuralelement)tothesubprocesses.Thisisillustratedbythehorizontal

rightarrow.Thethirdstepintroducessequencesofimpact,capturedbytracinghow

impactsfromactivitiesarediffusedthroughinterdependenciesbetweensubprocesses

(bothhorizontalarrows).Thisthesisdefinesutilitiesastheimpactofanactivityona

subprocess,includingindirectimpactstransmittedasinterdependenciesbetween

subprocesses.Thefourthstepdevelopsarole‐basedtypologyofresearchers,drawing

ontheiractivities.

Beforecontinuingwiththesesteps,thesystemdelineationinthisframeworkdeserves

someattention.Thepointofdepartureisacademia(anindividualoragroupof

21

individuals)anditsactivities.Fromthese,oneorseveralinnovationprocessesare

identified,definedaroundasetoftechnologiesorknowledgefieldsofpotential

relevancetotheactivities.TheinnovationprocessesdelimittheTISinwhichtheroleof

academiaisstudied.AcademiaisoneoftheactorswithinaTISifthefeedbackwiththe

restofthesystemissignificant.However,academiacouldbeexogenoustoaTISifits

activitieswerejustinputsthatinfluencedasystemwhichinturndidnotinfluence

academia.Inthiscase,theviewoftheroleofacademicR&Dintheinnovationprocess

resemblesthatinthelinearinnovationmodel.Nevertheless,inthiscase,theutilities

fromacademicR&DcanstillbestudiedthroughtheirimpactontheTIS.28

3.1. ActivitiesspringingfromorembeddedwithinacademicR&D29

AsmentionedinSection2.1,theresearchpolicyinterestinassessingacademicresearch

utilityhasallowedscholarstodevelopvariousframeworks.Fromthese,asetofkey

referenceswereselectedfromanextensiveliteraturereview(Cohenetal.,2002;D’Este

andPatel,2007;FaulknerandSenker,1995;Jacobsson,2002;Meyer‐Krahmerand

Schmoch,1998;Molas‐Gallartetal.,2002;Pavitt,1998;Salteretal.,2000).However,

mostofthesefocusonproductsoroutcomesofacademicR&D(suchaspapers,patents

andartefacts),whichriskstreatingtheprocessofgeneratingutilitiesasa‘blackbox.’30

Indeed,reviewsofresearchevaluations(e.g.,Salteretal.,2000;ElgandHåkansson,

2011)showthatindividuals’capacity,orknowledgeandskills,isakeyelementofthe

utilityfromacademicR&D.Toopentheblackbox,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetween

activities(whatacademicresearchersdo)andtheimpactoftheseactivities.Drawingon

theliterature,sevengroupsofactivitieswereidentified(seeTable3).31Combinations

andvariationsoftheseconstituteeverydaylifeforacademicresearchers.

28Asnoted,Figure2onlyillustratesacademiaasanendogenoussystemelement.Thefigureisasimplificationtokeepagoodoverviewoftheframework.29ThissubsectionmainlydrawsfromSubsection3.1inPaperI.30TheexceptionswereMolas‐Gallart,etal.(2002),whichfocusedon‘thirdstreamactivities’andD'esteandPatel(2007),whichfocusedon‘university‐industryinteractionactivities’.31Thistypologyofactivitiesincludesallaspectsgivenintheeightreferences.However,noneofthereferencescoversallthepresentedactivities.

22

TABLE3.ATYPOLOGYOFACTIVITIESSPRINGINGFROMOREMBEDDEDWITHINACADEMICR&D

Conductingresearchindifferentset‐ups,suchasby jointR&Dprojectsorcontractresearchandintra‐academicresearchprojects.

Scientificpublishingreferstotheacademicformofdiffusinginformationthroughpapers,booksandreports,includingrelatedtaskssuchasreviewingandediting.

Educatingincludesundergraduate,mastersandPhDstudenttraining,aswellascollaborativeandcontracttrainingforpolicyandindustry.

Providingexplicitguidancetopolicyandindustryinvolvesformalandinformalconsultationsandassignments,suchasparticipationinadvisoryboardsandinformaladvisorywork.Guidancealsoincludesparticipationinpublicdebatesbypublishinginnonscientificpublications,mediaappearancesandbygivingpublicseminars.Guidancemayalsobegivenwithintheresearchcommunity.

Commercialisationreferstothecreationofnewfirms,patents,licences,products,processesandservices.

Providingresearchinfrastructureinvolvesdevelopingandmaintaininginstruments,laboratories,cleanrooms,libraries,engineeringdesignsandmethods,aswellasresearchmethods.

Networkingreferstocreatingandmaintainingnetworks.Itisanintegralpartofacademicactivitiesandis,forinstance,performedthroughorganisingandparticipatingincollaborativeresearch,conferencesandseminarsinvolvingbothacademicandnonacademicactors.

3.2. Linkingactivitieswithkeyinnovationsubprocesses32

Tounderstandthetypesofdirectutilitiesthattheactivitiesmaygenerate,theyare

linkedtothesevenkeysubprocesses.33Thisgeneratesa7x7matrixofhypothetical

utilities,34asshowninFigure3.

32ThissubsectionmainlydrawsonSubsection3.2inPaperI.33Jacobsson(2002)introducedtheideaoflinkingacademicR&Dutilitiestokeysubprocessesofinnovation.Mohamad(2009)comparedeachoftheTISfunctionsinBergeketal.(2008a)withthe‘impactsoninnovationbyuniversities’(Salteretal.,2000),althoughoneimpactwasonlylinkedtoonefunction.34Utilitiesarelabelled‘pointsofimpact’inPaperI.

23

FIGURE3.MAPPINGDIRECTUTILITIESFROMACADEMICR&DACTIVITIESONTHESUBPROCESSESOFINNOVATION.ADOPTEDFROMPAPERI.HYPOTHETICALUTILITIESWERECHECKEDANDCLASSIFIEDASWELLRECOGNIZED(MORETHAN10REFERENCES),RECOGNIZED(1–10REFERENCES)ANDLACKINGRECOGNITION(NOREFERENCES).35

Eachsquareinthematrixrepresentsahypotheticalutilityfromanactivity.Forexample,

bydoingresearchandtransferringthenewknowledgetoMScstudents,academia

influencesknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion.Academiamayparticipateinpublic

debates,whichlegitimisesatechnology,orstartanewcompany,influencing

35Thesubprocessofdevelopmentofpositiveexternalitiesappearsinsteadofsocialcapitaldevelopment.Thisisbecausethereplacementoftheformerwiththelatterwasmadeinalaterstageoftheresearchprocess.Consequently,theanalysispresentedinthissubsection,aswellasthatinPaperI,includesdevelopmentofpositiveexternalitiesinsteadofsocialcapitaldevelopment.Asareminder,socialcapitaldevelopmentincludesmanyoftheaspectsindevelopmentofpositiveexternalities.Pleaseseefootnote25forfurtherimplicationsofthereplacement.

24

entrepreneurialexperimentation.Thedirectimpactofacademiaisunderstoodbyits

initialinfluenceonthedevelopmentofthesesubprocesses.

Anextensiveliteraturereviewwasconductedinordertodiscovertheextenttowhich

thesehypotheticalutilitieshavebeenrecognized.Thiscoveredabroadrangeofrelevant

fields,suchas‘impactassessment’,‘innovationsystems’,‘university‐industryrelations’

and‘theroleofuniversitiesineconomicgrowth’.Therewerethreepointsofentryinto

thisliterature.First,asetofarticlescoveringarangeofimpactswereidentified(Cohen

etal.,2002;Jacobsson,2002;Mansfield,1995;Mohamad,2006;Molas‐Gallartetal.,

2002;SalterandMartin,2001).Second,databasesweresearchedusingrelevantkey

words.36Third,referenceswereretrievedfromfellowresearchers’recommendations.

Fromtheseinitialreferences,relevantcitationsweretracedwhichwerefolloweduntila

substantialpartoftheliteraturere‐occurred.Thisresultedin74references.

Eachhypotheticalutilitywasgivenarecognitionlevelaccordingtothenumberof

referencesthatidentifiedit:Lackingrecognition(noreferences),recognized(oneto10

references)andwellrecognized(morethan10references).

Thirty‐sevenof49hypotheticalutilitieswererecognizedintheliterature,revealing

multidimensionalwaysinwhichacademicR&Disuseful.37AsseeninFigure3,

knowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion,resourcemobilisationandentrepreneurial

experimentationwereimpactedbyseveralactivities.However,thesubtle,butimportant

subprocessesofinfluenceonthedirectionofsearch,legitimationanddevelopmentof

positiveexternalities38werealsorecognizedasbeingimpactedbymanyactivities.

3.3. SequencesofimpactfromacademicR&D39

Theprevioussubsectionfocusedondirectutilities,butacademia’simpactmayalsobe

indirect.Forinstance,aresearcher’snetworkingactivities,suchasclosecooperation

withindustry,mayinitiallydirectlyimpactknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion.

36Examplesofkeywordsare:ImpactofacademicR&D,researchassessment,effects,U‐Irelationships,societalimpact,andinnovationsystem.ThemaindatabaseusedwasScienceDirect.OtherswereJSTORandtheChalmersUniversityofTechnologylibrarydatabases.37Thesefiguresshouldnotbeseenasexact,givenmethodologicallimitations.38Thesubprocessdevelopmentofpositiveexternalitiesisaremnantfromearlierversionsoftheframework.Asareminder,socialcapitaldevelopmentincludesmanyoftheaspectsindevelopmentofpositiveexternalities.Pleaseseefootnotes25and35forfurtherexplanations.39ThissubsectionmainlydrawsonSubsection2.2inPaperIV.

25

Industrymaythenutilisethenewknowledgeinentrepreneurialexperimentation.

Subsequently,theseexperimentsmaybeground‐breaking,pavingthewayforthe

developmentofnewmarkets.Inthisway,sequencesofimpactunfold.Asequenceof

impactisthepatternofimpactfromanactor(inthiscase,academia)thatunfolds

throughcumulativeinteractionswithinasystem.Sequencesofimpactcanbecaptured

throughtheinterdependencesbetweeninnovationsubprocesses.Bergeketal.(2008a,

b),Hekkertetal.(2007),JacobssonandBergek(2004)andSuurs(2009)establishsuch

interdependences.SequencesofimpactbuildontwoassumptionsinTISliterature:

Actorsmayaffectthedevelopmentofinnovationsubprocesses;andthesesubprocesses

areinterdependent.

Moreover,thechain‐linkedmodeloftheinnovationprocess(KlineandRosenberg,

1986)recognisesthecontinuousroleofresearch,aswellasthefeedbackbetween

research,existingknowledgeandthecentralchainofinnovation.Themodelillustrates

complexinformationflowpathsandcooperationinlinewiththeconceptofsequencesof

impact.Inthisinnovationprocess,academiamayproduceknowledgethroughresearch

andestablishlinksbetweenresearch,existingknowledgeandinnovation,notjustinthe

initialphase,butinlaterphasesorthroughouttheprocess.

Bergeketal.(2008a,b)tracesubprocessinterdependencesviastructuralchanges,as

illustratedbythetwohorizontalarrowsinFigure2.Forinstance,astrengthened

legitimation(subprocess)mayleadtotheentryofnewactors(structure)bringingnew

resourcesintotheTIS(subprocess).Capturingsequencesthroughbothstructural

changeandsubprocessesprovidesasolidunderstandingofdynamicsbutisextremely

complextoshow.Thiscomplexitymaybereducedbyfocusingprimarilyonprocess‐to‐

processinterdependencies.Hekkertetal.(2007)andSuurs(2009)establish

interdependencesthrough‘leads‐to’relationshipsbetweenevents(inotherwords,what

subjectsdoorgothroughthatareimportanttoaTIS).40Eventsareaggregatedtothe

subprocesslevelandtheleads‐torelationshipsbetweeneventsmakeupsubprocess

interdependencies.AcademicR&Dactivitiescanbeconsideredevents.Figure4givesan

exampleofhowsequencesofimpactscanevolveinrelationtoanacademicactivity.

40Examplesofeventsarepolicyinitiatives,initiationofresearchprogrammesandcompanystart‐ups.

26

FIGURE4.ANEXAMPLEOFASEQUENCEOFIMPACTRELATEDTOASINGLEACADEMICACTIVITY.

Aneducationalactivityinitiallymobilisesresourcesintheformofindividuals.These

carryknowledgethatmayinfluencethedirectionofsearchastheybecomepolicy‐makers

orindustrialmanagers.Subsequently,theseinfluentialindividualsmayformmarketsby

launchingdemand‐creatingpolicyinitiativesorleadingascustomers.Newknowledge

mayalsopavethewayforentrepreneurialexperimentsandlegitimation.Inparallel,the

initialresourcemobilisationmayinducesocialcapitaldevelopmentasnewindividuals

bringnewrelationships,providingaccesstocomplementaryassetsandinfrastructure

thatmaystrengthenresourcemobilisationfurther.Inadditiontotheinitialactivity,

academiamayrecurrentlystrengthentheseprocessesdirectlythroughotheractivities.

Inthismanner,sequencesmayevolvethroughsubprocessinterdependencies,making

upamultidimensionalpatternofimpact.

3.4. Atypologyofrolesthatresearchersenactinmakingresearchuseful41

Thisstepislargelyareorganisationofthefirsttwostepsthatfurtherexplainsutilities.

Evaluatingandimprovingacademicutilityisoftendonewithregardtotheparticular

researcherorresearchgroupwhoshowsdifferentpatternsofutilitythatdependupon

thecontext.Also,theutilityofresearchersorresearchgroupsdependsontheir

41ThissectiondrawsonSection4inPaperV.

27

interactionwithotherresearchersorresearchgroups.Therearethus

complementarities.

Theempiricalexplorationofthethreefirststepsoftheframeworkrevealsvariations

withregardtoactivitiesthatresearchersorresearchgroupsfocusupon,

complementaritieswithotherresearchersoractors,andtheresultingutility.These

variationsdistinguishdifferentroles.Therolesaredefinedintermsoftheemphasisof

anactor(aresearcher,agroupofresearchersoranentireorganisation)onthe

combinationofactivitiesandsubactivities.42Also,reflectingonutilityintermsofroles

allowsforunderstandingcomplementaritybetweendifferentresearchersorresearch

groups.

Atypologyofsevenrolesinmakingscienceusefulisgenerated:Researcher,teacher,

advisor,debater,networker,infrastructuredeveloperandentrepreneur.Therolesare

cognitivelydistinct,sincetheknowledgeandskillsrequiredtofulfilthemvary,

dependingontheparticularrole.Table4showstheroles,togetherwithrelated

activities,subactivitiesandcorrespondingsubprocessesthattherolesmainlyaffect.

42Rolesmaybeclusteredindifferentways.Theofferedclusteringhasanappropriateresolutionforgoodoverviewwithsufficientlevelofdetail.Empiricalexplorationoftherolesconfirmedthesuitabilityofthisclustering. The subactivities are presented in Paper I.

28

TABLE4.SUMMARYOFTHEROLESOFRESEARCHERS,RELATEDACTIVITIES/SUBACTIVITIESANDTHEMAINSUBPROCESSESIMPACTED,ADOPTEDFROMPAPERV.

RoleActivity

(sub‐activity)Mainsubprocessesimpacted43

ResearcherConductingresearch/Scientificpublishing

InfluenceonthedirectionofsearchKnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionEntrepreneurialexperimentationSocialcapitaldevelopment

TeacherEducating

InfluenceonthedirectionofsearchResourcemobilisationKnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionSocialcapitaldevelopment

AdvisorProvidingexplicitguidance

(participationinpolicy/industryboards,informaladvisoryandconsultation)

InfluenceonthedirectionofsearchLegitimationEntrepreneurialexperimentationKnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion

DebaterProvidingexplicitguidance

(participationinpublicdebates)

InfluenceonthedirectionofsearchLegitimationKnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion

EntrepreneurCommercialisation

InfluenceonthedirectionofsearchMarketformationEntrepreneurialexperimentationMaterialisation44Knowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion

InfrastructuredeveloperProvidingresearchinfrastructure

EntrepreneurialexperimentationMaterialisationResourcemobilisationKnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion

NetworkerNetworking

KnowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionLegitimationSocialcapitaldevelopment

Therolesinterconnectindifferentways.First,takingononerolemayleadtothebuild‐

upofknowledgeandcapacityfortakingonothers.Differentmeta‐rolesmayemerge

fromcombinationsofseveralroles.Forexample,Hellsmark(2010)showsthattherole

ofsystemmemorymaybeextremelyimportanttoquicklyrespondtochangingneeds.

Systembuilderisanothermeta‐role,whichcombinesmanyrolesinordertotakethekey

responsibilityforthedevelopmentofafield(HellsmarkandJacobsson,2009).Second,

therolescomplementanddependononeanother.Forexample,whenaninfrastructure

developerpresentsanewresearchinstrument,itmayenablethefurtherworkof

researchersandentrepreneurs’commercialexperimentation.Complementarityand

interdependencemaybefoundatanindividualorgrouplevel.Thepreviousexample

43Thesubprocessesinthiscolumnaretheonesmostrecognizedinthereceivedliteratureandcases.Therolesalsoaffectothersubprocessesbuttoalesserextent.44InPaperV,thesubprocessofmaterialisationisextractedfromtheprocessofentrepreneurialexperimentation.Materialisationincludesaspectsofentrepreneurialexperimentationthatdealwithcreatingartefactssuchasphysicalproducts,productionfacilitiesandotherinfrastructure.

29

canbeappliedtothreegroups,whereresearchgroupAactsasinfrastructuredevelopers,

groupBasresearchersandgroupCasentrepreneurs.Third,theremaybetrade‐offs

betweentheroles.Realisingonerolemaytakeresourcesfromrealisinganother,

particularlyatthelevelofanindividual.

3.5. Amultidimensional,dynamicandcontext‐dependentframework

Thesefourstepsresultinamultidimensional,dynamicandcontext‐dependentframework

forcapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D.Thesecharacteristicsstem

fromthesystemicnatureoftheframework.Theframeworkismultidimensionalsinceit

enablesaccountingforadiversesetofactivities,impacts,sequencesandrolesthat

researchersenactinmakingresearchuseful.

Theframeworkisdynamicsinceittracesimpactaschangesinseveralstepsthatinclude

feedbackandlongtimescalesascomparedtosolelystructuralchange(suchasnew

companiesandtheirgrowth,extendednetworkorchangesininstitutionalframeworks).

Asignificantbenefitisthatadynamicapproachpartlyhandlestheproblemoflongtime

lagsuntilthefullimpactofacademicR&Disrevealed,oftentakingseveraldecades.

Impactonthesubprocessesmayindicatepotentialstructuralchanges(Sandénetal.,

2008).Also,thedynamicframeworkenablescapturingandexplaininglong‐termand

indirectutilitiesthroughsequencesofimpact.

Theofferedframeworkiscontext‐dependentsinceitsystematicallyaccountsfor

influencefromacademia’ssurroundingsetting,asotherstructuralelementsand

exogenousfactorsalsocontributetoTISdynamics.Thishastwomainimplicationsfor

theframework.First,systemendogenousandexogenousfactorsconditiontheutilities

fromacademicR&D.Theyinfluencethedevelopmentofsequencesofimpactandaffect

theabilityofaresearchertotakeonarole.Theseendogenousandexogenousfactors

canbeverydifficult,orevenimpossible,foracademiatoinfluencewithinaparticular

timescale.Forinstance,itisdifficulttosustaintheroleofanadvisorwithoutan

interestedbeneficiary.However,otheractorsinthesystemmaysupportutility

developmentbycreatingfavourableconditionsbystrengtheninginnovation

subprocesses.Inthisway,othersystemactorsmaycomplementacademicactivitiesand

roles.Forexampleacompanymayfilltheroleofanentrepreneur,andaresearch

30

institutemaybeaninfrastructuredeveloper.45Second,aninitialactivity,whichmay

resultinautilityorasequence,doesnotemergefromtabularasabutspringsfroman

existingsystem.Autilityorasequenceispartofacontinuousdevelopmentandmay

alsobestudiedwithanotheractor’sactivitiesasastartingpoint,suchasacompanyor

aninstitute.

4. Methodforconductingtheempiricalstudies

Applyingtheframeworkcallsforamethodthatcanbringoutrichexploratoryand

explanatorydescriptions.In‐depthcasestudiesproviderichdescriptionsandhigh

realismofcontext.Thisiswhytheyofferthemostsuitableapproachfortheempirical

studiesinthisthesis(MarshallandRossman,2010).Themethodologyforundertaking

thethreecasestudiesisexplainedbelow.

4.1. Caseselection

Thethreein‐depthcasestudieshavevaryingscopesandwerechosentoillustrate

differentaspectsoftheframework.ThefirstcasecoversSwedishnanotechnology

researchandexploresandillustratesthefirsttwostepsofconstructingtheframework:

Identifyingactivitiesandcouplingthesewithsubprocesses(seePaperII).

Nanotechnologywasselectedforthreereasons.First,itisafieldofgreatgrowth

potential,andpolicy‐makersareconcernedaboutinsufficientbenefitsbeinggenerated

fromacademicR&D.Second,nanotechnologyisachieflyscience‐based,emergingarea

whereacademicresearchersaresignificantactors.Third,itincludesanempirical

domainthattheauthorisfamiliarwith.Thisstrengthensthestudy’svaliditysincethe

availabilityofappropriatebackgroundknowledgeandthefacilityofaccessingkey

actorsisofgreatbenefitwhenseekingrichdescriptions.

ThesecondcasefocusesontheresearchinanenergyinitiativeatChalmersUniversityof

Technology.Itexploresandillustratesthefirsttwostepsintheframework,butalso

illustratessomesequencesofimpact(seePaperIII).Inaddition,asectionofthiscase

illustratesthetypologyofroles(seePaperV).Thiscasewasselectedsincetheenergy

initiativeincludesworld‐classacademicresearchinawiderangeoffieldsthatthe

Swedishgovernmentexpectstobeofgreatbenefitforindustry.Itprovidesarich,

45Thisillustratesthatnotallrolesoractivitiesnecessarilyneedtobefulfilledbyacademia.

31

relevantcaseforexploringandillustratingtheframework.Inaddition,theaccessto

intervieweeswasveryadvantageousandfacilitatedobtainingrichdescriptions.

ThethirdcasefocusesontheresearchofBengtKasemo,aprofessorinphysicsat

ChalmersUniversityofTechnology.Itmainlyillustratessequencesofimpact;thethird

stepintheframework(seePaperIV).Therewerethreemainreasonsforthiscase

selection.First,Kasemoiswell‐establishedinphysicsandprovidesarichcasewitha

longtimeaxis,whichwassuitableforgeneratingdetailed,richdescriptions.Second,

narrowingthescopetoKasemo’sactivities,andtheactivitiesofkeyindividualsinthe

researchgrouparoundhim,madethedatacollectionandanalysismanageable.Thisis

beneficialsincearichcaserisksbecomingdifficulttomanage,owingtotheextensive

dataandanalysisrequiredtoexploremultidimensionalsequencesoveranextended

timeperiod.Third,theauthorhadsignificantaccessto,andunderstandingof,Kasemo’s

environment,whichisbeneficialtothevalidityofthestudy.46

4.2. Datacollectionandanalysis

Conductingthecasestudiesinthisthesisinvolvediterativesearchprocesses,wherethe

methodpartlydevelopedontheway.Iterationsparticularlyoccurredbetweenthe

closelyinterrelatedstagesofdatacollectionandanalysis,whichisacommonprocedure

inTISstudies(Bergeketal.,2008a).

Collectingdataforthecasestudiesrequiredimmersionintoparticularsettingsusing

multiplemethods,butprimarilysemi‐structuredinterviews.Theseinterviewswere

bookedandpreparedwithaninterviewtemplatestructuredfromtheframework.

However,thephrasingandsequenceoftheinterviewquestionsneededtobeadaptedto

eachinterviewee,sincethecasestudiesrequiredinterviewingdifferentactors,suchas

researchers,beneficiaries,researchmanagersandpolicy‐makers.Theinterview

templatealsodevelopedalongtheway.Theinitialinterviewswereaformofpre‐testing,

andthetemplatewasrefinedasinterviewswereconductedandhypothesesemerged.

Conversationalinterviewsandemailcorrespondencewerealsoincluded.TheSwedish

nanotechnologycaseincluded35interviews,theenergyresearchcasehad29andthe

46ThefactthattherewerenoformallinksbetweentheauthorandKasemofurtherstrengthensthevalidity.

32

caseoftheSwedishphysicsprofessorhad22interviews.47Theinterviewswere

transcribed,whichinvolvedinterpretationastheconversationallanguagewas

condensedandadopted.Transcribingalsoallowedformicro‐analysisofthedata,

enablingintuitivereflectionsthatwerelatertested.

Datawerealsocollectedfromsecondarysourcessuchasreports,books,research

evaluations,eventrecords,newsarticlesandon‐linedocumentations.Moreover,data

werecollectedfrompatentsandpublicationsdatabases.Inadditiontotheuseofthese

dataasmetrics,theyidentifiedactors(organisationsandindividuals)andrelationships.

Theresultingdata,consistingoftranscriptionsandsecondarytextualmaterial,were

extensiveandneededstructuring.Datawerecodedasactivities,subprocessesandother

labels,suchaspeople,programmes,organisations,regulations,incidents,yearsor

places.ThecaseofSwedishnanotechnologyresearchwasmanuallycoded.Theother

caseswerecodedusingthesoftwareAtlas.TI.Theanalysisincludeddeepengagementin

theextensive,structureddata,searchingforutilities,sequencesofimpactandroles.This

waspartlyaninformalprocess.Intuitiveinterpretationsemergedasdatawascollected

andstructured.Theseinterpretationswerethenformulatedandtestedonthedata.

Theextensive,diversedatapresentedgreatopportunitiesforvalidationthrough

triangulation.Resultswerecomparedfromdifferenttypeofdataorfrominterviewing

peoplewithdifferentperspectives.Generousaccesstointervieweesalsoallowedfor

checkinginterpretationsandhypothesesbyfollowingupwithrespondents.

4.3. Methodologicalreflectionsfromtheempiricalstudies

Severalmethodologicalreflectionsemergedfromthecasestudies.First,asmentionedin

Subsection1.3,casestudiesareoftencriticisedwithregardtolimitationsforpositivistic

generalisationsfromresults.However,thethreecasesinthisthesisoffersufficiently

richdescriptionsforotherstoassesstheappropriatenessoftransferringthefindings.

Therefore,thetransferabilitycriterionismet.Inthissense,andgiventheexplanatory

andexploratoryaimofthisthesis,“theforceofexample”ofthesecasesovershadowsthe

47TheauthorofthisthesisconductedalloftheinterviewsfortheSwedishnanotechnologycaseandthecaseoftheSwedishphysicsprofessor.Intheenergyresearchcase,theauthorparticipatedin11outof29interviews.

33

conventionalneedforgeneralisations.Still,furtherresearchisneededtoaddto

descriptionsofutilitiesorsequences,aswellastomanifestotherobservations.

Second,therewereconcernsaboutbiasesregardingtheinterviewerinrelationto

interviewees,andintervieweesinrelationtothesubjectofinquiry.Thisthesis

comprisesactionresearch,andtheinterviewerwasacquaintedwithsomeofthe

intervieweesandinvolvedinsomeoftheprocesses.Thishasprovidedaccessto

environments,peopleandbackgroundknowledgethatarehardtoobtainotherwise,but

mayhavebiasedtheinterviewer,sincepreconceptionsofaphenomenonmayinfluence

interpretations.Therearealsostrongincentivesforacademicstoprovetheutilityof

theirresearch.Thismayhaveinfluencedtheirbehaviourwheninterviewedforthis

thesis.Inaddition,thecaseofthephysicsprofessorincludedinterviewinginformants

whoworkedclosetohim,whichiswhytheirobjectivitymaybequestioned.However,

theirwell‐informedinsightsarecrucial.Totheiradvantage,allthreecasestudies

includeddiversedataandinformants.Thisallowedforvalidationofstatementsand

hypothesesthroughtriangulation,whichenabledhandlingconcernsregardingbias.In

particular,independentresearchevaluationsandinterviewswithnonacademicactors

wereused.

Third,conductingthecasestudiesincludedacomplex,iterativeresearchapproach,

wherethemethodpartlydevelopedalongtheway.Thisinvolvedchallengesregarding

feasibility,giventhetime‐consumingtaskofdatacollectionandanalysis,andpresenting

asufficientlyclear,detaileddescriptionofthemethodtoallowre‐analysis.48Thus,the

analyticalprocessinthisthesismaybeblurrycomparedtoquantitativeapproaches.

However,giventhatthisthesisincludesexplorativeactionresearch,itseeksrelevance

andrealismbeforeareliabilityandtractability.

5. Resultsandconclusionsfromtheempiricalstudies

Thissectionsummarisestheresultsofthethreecases.

48Forinstance,thematrixallowsfor49hypotheticalutilities.Gainingathoroughunderstandingofeachofthese,includinginsightsofthelargersysteminthesamestudytakestime.However,theanalysiscanfocusonselectedutilitiesorbesimplifiedthroughalightermappingofthestructure.Likewise,exhaustivelytracingsequencesofimpactisnotfeasible.Inthiscase,emphasisinreferencesandtheinformedjudgmentsofintervieweesmaybeusedtoselectkeysequencesuponwhichtofocus.

34

5.1. ThecaseofSwedishnanotechnology49

Thepurposeofthisfirststudyistocontributetotheliteratureontheimpactof

academicR&Dbyapplyingthefirsttwostepsoftheframework(upperleftovalinFigure

2)tothecaseofSwedishnanotechnologyresearch.Bydoingso,amultidimensional

pictureisrevealedofhowresearcherscreateutilitiesas32of49hypotheticalutilities

arerecognised.Thecaserevealsthattheactivitiesofconductingresearchand

commercialisinghaveaparticularlymultidimensionalimpactsincetheyaffectmany

differentsubprocesses.Severalactivitiesimpactsubprocessesthatarerelativelystrong:

Knowledgedevelopmentanddiffusion,resourcemobilisation(regardinghumancapital)

andentrepreneurialexperimentation.

Impactsare,however,constrainedbyblockingmechanismsaffectingseveral

subprocesses.Forinstance,academicsattemptedtostrengthenlegitimationby

networkingandprovidingguidancethroughdevelopingstrategicpolicysuggestions.

However,theimpactoftheseactivitiesonstructuralchangelargelyremainstobeseen,

forreasonsthataredifficultforacademicresearcherstoinfluence.Identifyingthese

blockingmechanismshelpsexplainwhatconditionsutilitygenerationandguidespolicy

towardinterventionsthatmayimproveit.Thesemechanismsalllayoutsideofthe

academicsector:Paucityofknowledgeofenvironmentalrisks,overlylargeinstitutional

andmarketuncertainties,andinadequateaccesstoinnovation‐relatedcapital.This

illustratestheneedforpolicytoapplyasystemicperspectivewhenaimingtoimprove

theimpactofacademicR&D.

5.2. ThecaseofChalmersEnergyInitiative50

Thesecondcaseaimedtounderstandpatternswithrespecttohowtheenergyresearch

groupatChalmersUniversityofTechnologymakesscienceuseful.Itisframedbythe

ChalmersEnergyInitiative(CEI),agovernment‐fundedresearchareaofstrategic

importancetoSweden.Thefirsttwostepsoftheframeworkaremainlyappliedtothis

case,althoughfeaturesofthethirdstep(sequencesofimpact)arealsoincluded.51This

caserevealssignificantmultidimensionalutilitiesfromnetworking,providing

infrastructure,providingexplicitguidanceandeducating.Manyoftheutilitieswere

49ThissubsectionsummarisestheempiricalresultsinPaperII.50ThissubsectionsummarisesresultsfromPapersIIIandV.51However,theconceptualworkonthesequencesofimpactwasmadeinPaperIV.

35

subtle,suchasprovidinganeutralmeetingplacethatfacilitatedthedevelopmentof

trust,continuousdialoguesthatguidedbeneficiariesandspecializedhumancapitalthat

drovecollaborationbycreatingsocialcoherence.Someutilitiesunfoldedinsequences,

asactivitiesindirectlyimpactedresourcemobilisation,influenceonthedirectionofsearch

andentrepreneurialexperimentation(includingpatenting)overanextendedperiodof

time.Forinstance,manyCEIPhDsengageinpatenting,drawingonknowledgegainedat

CEI,onlyafterbeingemployedatfirms.Theindirectimpactspointtoapossible

limitationofindicators(suchasthenumberofpatentapplicationsbyacademic

researchers)inreflectingthecontributionofacademiatoentrepreneurial

experimentation.Resultsalsopointtotheimportanceofunderstandingtheknowledge

fieldandthecontextofacademiatoappreciatetheirvalueandextent,particularlyfor

subtleutilities.

ThecaseofenergyresearchatChalmersalsoillustratestherolesputforwardinthefinal

stepofdevelopingtheframework.First,thecaseillustratesrolesintermsofhow

researchersdifferinthetypesofactivitiestheyundertakeand,consequently,the

utilitiesthattheygenerate.Inparticular,rolesthatpreviousresearchhasgivenless

attentionto,suchasadvisor,debater,networkerandinfrastructuredeveloper,appearto

beimportanthere.Second,itshowshowtherolesareinterconnected,inparticularhow

takingononeroleisaprerequisitefortakingonanotherandhowrolesarecombined

intometa‐roles.Third,itillustrateshowtherolesinteractwith,anddependupon,the

restofthesystem.

5.3. Thecaseofaprofessorinphysics52

Thepurposeofthethirdcasewastotraceandcharacterisesequencesofimpactfrom

academicR&D,aswellastocontributetothedevelopmentofamethodologyfor

capturingtheseimpacts.Itdemonstratesthethirdstep(rightovalinFigure2)–

sequencesofimpact–withthecaseoftheChalmersphysicsprofessorBengtKasemo.

Long‐termandmultidimensionalsequencesaretracedincatalysis,biocompatible

materialsandresearchpolicybyshowinginterdependencesbetweensubprocessesof

innovation.Theimpactonknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionandinfluenceonthe

directionofsearchiscontinuousandcumulative,andenableslegitimation,resource

52ThissubsectionsummarisesresultsfromPaperIV.

36

mobilisationandsocialcapitaldevelopment.Thelattertwoenablefurtherimpactsonthe

othersubprocesses,including,entrepreneurialexperimentationandmarketformation.

Kasemo’simpactwasdeeplyintertwinedwith,andenabledby,hisstrongnetworkswith

competent,engagedpartners.Sequencesofimpactunfoldedwhenthetimingwasright

andengagedactorswereinplace.Thisledtomaterialisationandindustrial

development,oftenwithinseveraldecades.

Thecaserevealedimpactsondifferentlevels:Individual,organisational,industryand

national.Somesequencesstartedwithanindividual,continuingwithanorganisation

(suchasagovernmentalagencyoracompany)oraresearchprogramme,followedbya

sectorandfinallynationallevel.Assequencesmovedthroughtheselevels,theimpact

fromacademiawasfurtherintertwinedwiththatofothersystemactors.

Thiscasealsoillustrateshowutilitygenerationdependsonthecontext,outofthe

influencefromacademia.Forinstance,acarcompany’stimelyinterest,owingto

tighteningautomotiveemissionregulations,resultedinalong‐termcooperationwith

Kasemo.ThisenabledutilitiesfromKasemo’sresearchtounfoldinsequencesofimpact

overseveraldecades.

5.4. RevealedempiricalpatternsonutilitiesfromacademicR&D

Thecasesshowanumberofcommonpatterns.First,allillustratewide‐rangingpatterns

ofimpacts,showingthemultidimensionalityofutilitiesfromacademicR&D.Theyreveal

utilitiesthatarewell‐known,suchasimpactsfromtheactivitiesconductingresearch,

educatingandcommercialisationonthesubprocessesknowledgedevelopment,resource

mobilisationandentrepreneurialexperimentation.However,theyalsorevealutilitiesthat

areveryimportantbutthatpreviousliteraturegiveslessattentionto.Examplesare

utilitiesfromactivitiessuchasprovidingexplicitguidancebybeinganintelligent

conversationpartnerandenrichingsocietaldebates,ornetworkingbybeinganodein

oragatekeepertoanetworkwhereactorsdevelopcollectiveworldviews.Thesetarget

theinnovationsubprocessesofinfluenceonthedirectionofsearch,legitimationand

socialcapitaldevelopment.Inall,thecasesrevealutilitiesthatwentbeyondspin‐offs,

patentsandpublications.

Second,thecaseshighlightthelongtimescalesinvolvedinmakingscienceuseful.Many

utilitiesemergedtoasubstantialdegreeonlyafterseveraldecades.Third,theCEIand

37

physicsprofessorcasesillustratehowsubstantialpartsoftheutilitiesaremediatedby

students,firmsorpolicy‐makersinsequencesofimpact.Theyshowhowutilitycreation

isextensivelyintertwinedwiththeactionsofothersystemactors.Fourth,allthreecases

highlighttheimportanceofnetworkinginthedevelopmentofinfluenceonthedirection

ofsearchandsocialcapitaldevelopment,whichappearstobesignificantinenabling

sequences.

Fifth,allcasesillustratehowthewiderenvironmentthatacademiahardlyinfluences

conditionsutilitydevelopment.Thispertainstofavourablesettings,suchasacar

company’stimelyinterestinthecaseofthephysicsprofessor.Theenvironmentmay

alsohinderutilitydevelopment,suchasinthecaseofSwedishnanotechnologywhere

thelackofknowledgeaboutenvironmentalandhealthrisksheldbackthedevelopment

ofutilities.

5.5. ViabilityoftheframeworkforstudyingutilitiesfromacademicR&D

Theframeworkenabledin‐depthstudiesthatstayedclosetothereal‐worldsetting,

whichwascrucialforidentifyingmultidimensionalutilitiesaswellasunderstanding

howtheydependedonthesetting.Inall,theframeworkwasuseful,particularlysinceit

enabledidentifyingsubtle,long‐termandembeddedutilitiesthatweresignificantbut

couldeasilyhavebeenoverlooked.Theapplicationoftheframeworkalsoallowed

exploringhowutilitiesareinducedorobstructedbyfactorsthatarehardforacademia

toinfluence,giventhetimescale.

However,therearesomeaspectsthatneedtobetakenintoaccountwhenconsidering

theviabilityoftheframework.First,someactivitiesareverycloselyinterwoven,which

presentschallengeswhenanalyticallydistinguishingthem.53Forinstance,providing

explicitguidanceandnetworkingaredeeplyembeddedinotheractivities.Althoughthis

maypresentproblemsinidentifyingthetypeofactivityfromwhichaspecificutilitycan

bederived,itdidnotpresentconsiderablechallengesinthisthesis.

Second,therearechallengesregardingthedelimitationofinnovationsubprocesses.

Somepresenttightintertwining,similartotheaforementionedactivities.Forinstance,

entrepreneurialexperimentationincludesknowledgedevelopment,whileofamore

53SeePaperIforacloserdescriptionofthisconsideration.

38

practicalnature.Influenceonthedirectionofsearchinherentlyincludesknowledge

diffusion,asdoesresourcemobilisationofhumancapital.Anadditionalconcern

regardingdelimitationisthatsomesubprocessesinvolvemanydifferentaspects.An

exampleisresourcemobilisation,whichincludesfinancialandhumancapital,and

complementaryresources.However,theseintertwiningsanddiverseinclusionsdidnot

presentsignificantproblemsinanalysingthecasesinthisthesis.Occasionally,it

requiredamoredetailedre‐interpretationofthedatawithfurtherclarifieddefinitions

oftheaspectincludedineachsubprocess.

Third,althoughthisframeworkallowsforcapturinglong‐termutilities,including

indirectandsubtleones,therearechallengesinattributingthecontributionfroma

particularactivityorevenaspecificresearcherorgroup.Forinstance,attributingthe

particularcontributionfromaconversation(providingexplicitguidance)tothechange

inanactor’sattitude(influenceonthedirectionofsearch)involvesinterpretations,both

bytheintervieweeandtheinterviewer.Moreover,theparticularcontributionis

conditionedbytheinfluencefromotherfactors.Asthisembeddednessincreaseswith

time,sodothechallengesofattribution.54Triangulationwithdiversetypesofdataand

follow‐upswithrespondentsallowedmeetingthesechallenges.

6. Conclusionsandcontributions

ThisthesisoffersaframeworkforcapturingandexplainingutilitiesfromacademicR&D.

Itcapturesandexplains(i)directutilitiesthroughenrichingtheTISapproachwitha

typologyofactivitiesspringingfromacademicR&D;(ii)long‐termandindirectutilities

assequencesofimpactbytracingutilitiesthroughsubprocessinterdependencies,and

(iii)diverserolesofresearchersbasedontheirmainactivities.Theframeworkappliesa

systemsperspectiveonutilitiesfromacademicR&D.Thismakesitmultidimensional

sinceitenablescapturingadiversesetofutilities,dynamicsinceittracesimpacton

subprocessdynamicsascomparedtosolelystructuralchangeandcontext‐dependent

sinceitsystematicallyaccountsforcontextualinfluence.

54Afourthconsiderationisrelatedtotheaspectofadditionality(Molas‐Gallartetal.,2002).Forexample,aresearcheractsasagovernmentcommissionedpolicy‐maker,legitimizingatechnicalfield.Intheabsenceoftheacademicaction,wouldthesystemnothavechanged,wouldthesamesystemdynamicsunfoldregardlessorwouldthesystemhaveadaptedandsubstitutedtheaction,resultinginthesamedynamics?

39

Applyingtheframeworkinthisthesisdrawsattentiontoanumberofaspectsthatcould

easilybeoverlooked,butareessentialtocapturethefullbenefitsofresearch.First,the

thesisaccountsforutilitiesthatgomuchbeyondthosecapturedbyconventional

indicatorssuchasspin‐offs,patentsandpublications.Thisincludesaccountingfor

variationsinhowresearcherscreateutilitiesthrougharole‐basedtypology.Second,it

drawsparticularattentiontomoresubtlerolesandutilities,suchasguiding

beneficiariesbybeingalongstandingconversationpartner,facilitatingthedevelopment

ofsocialcoherencebyprovidingneutralmeetingplacesoreducatingspecialisedhuman

capitalwhoseaffinitydrivescollaboration.Theseutilitiesarelargelyrelatedto

significant,yetlesstangible,subprocessessuchasinfluenceonthedirectionofsearch,

legitimationandsocialcapitaldevelopment.Third,applyingtheframeworkallowsfor

notonlyincludingimmediateutilities,butalsolong‐termindirectbenefits.Theseunfold

insequencesofimpact,mediatedthroughstudents,firmsorpolicy‐makers.Thus,this

frameworkenablesexplaininghowthegenerationofutilitiesisdeeplyintertwinedin

theactionsofothers.Fourth,thisthesiscontributestounderstandinghowthewider

settingconditionsutilitydevelopment.Thispertainstootherstructuralelementsinthe

TISthatmaybehardforacademiatoinfluence,aswellastoexternalfactors.The

frameworknotonlyenablesidentifyingutilitiesbutalsocontextualfactorsthat

conditiontheimpact,guidingpolicyinsystemicallyimprovingutilities.Fifth,thethesis

showshowutilitiesmayunfoldoveralongtimeperiod.Itillustrateshowitmaytake

severaldecadesforthesubstantialimpacttoemerge.

Themultidimensional,dynamicandcontext‐dependentcharacteroftheframework

presentedinthisthesisoffersawayoflookingatacademicutilitythattakesintoaccount

timingandinteractionwithanever‐changingsetting.Thus,itiswellsuitedtocapture

andexplainhowutilitiesfromacademicR&Darecreatedbysurfingthecomplex,

uncertainandsomewhatdisorderlyoceanofsociety.Itsapplicationtoliteratureand

casesclearlyillustratesthelimitationsofapplyinganarrowviewoftheutilityof

research,suchascountinggoldeneggsonlyrelatedtocommercialisation.Thenext

sectionlaysoutthecontributionsofthethesisfindingstotheTISapproachandthe

researchpolicyliterature.Italsopresentspolicyimplicationsandareasforfurther

research.

40

6.1. Empiricalcontributions

Thereareanumberofkeyempiricalcontributionsfromthisthesis.Thecasescapturea

notablywidesetofutilities,acknowledgingthoseinstudiesbyFaulknerandSenker

(1995),Meyer‐KrahmerandSchmoch(1998),Mansfield(1995),SalterandMartin

(2001),Salteretal.(2000),Saxenian(1994)andScottetal.(2001).Thisisapparentin

Figure5.AllutilitiesrecognisedintheliteraturereviewofPaperIwerealsorevealedin

thecases.Inaddition,thecasescontributebyrecognisingsixadditionalutilitiesthatalso

appearinFigure5.Forinstance,thecaseofSwedishnanotechnologyshowedhowthe

provisionofresearchinfrastructuredivenbyacademia,suchasdevelopmentsofthe

EuropeanSpallationSource(ESS)andMaxIVsynchrotronradiationfacility,legitimated

Swedishnanotechnology.

FIGURE5.RECOGNISEDUTILITIESINPAPERSI,IIANDIII.55

55NotethatPaperIIIdidnotanalyseutilitiesfromscientificpublishing.Also,inthecaseofPaperIII,therecognisedutilitiesnotedinthisfigureincludeindirectutilities.

41

ThecasesalsocontributebyillustratinghowutilitiesfromacademicR&Dweredeeply

embeddedintodifferentsettings.Theroleofnetworkingwasimportantincreatingthis

embeddedness.ThesefindingsareinlinewiththosebypioneerssuchasLundvall

(2010a)andHåkansson(1989),particularlyregardingtheimportanceoflong‐term

relationshipsbuiltontrustandmutualunderstanding.Theinfluenceofsystem

endogenousandexogenousfactorsonthegenerationofutilitiesisanotheraspectof

embeddedness.Inthisregard,thecasescontributebyillustratinghowfactors,suchas

lackofinterestfrombeneficiaries,conditionthedevelopmentofutilities.Thisisanissue

thathasbeengivenlessattentionintheliteratureonacademicutility.

Finally,allcasesshowthatittakestimeforsubstantialimpactemerges.Thus,thethesis

confirmspreviousconclusionsonhowitmaytakeseveraldecadesforthesignificant

effectsofacademicR&Dtoappear(e.g.,MartinandTang,2007;NelsonandWinter,

1977;SalterandMartin,2001).Inaddition,thecasesillustratehowutilitiesunfold,

whichaddstotheunderstandingofwhytheselongperiodsoftimeoftenarerequired.

6.2. Conceptualcontributions

ThisthesisexploredtheconnectionbetweentheTISliteratureandtheresearchpolicy

literatureonacademicutilitybymergingselectedpartsofthesetworesearchfields.In

doingso,thisthesiscontributedtoeachofthem.

ContributionswithrespecttotheTISapproach

First,theframeworkcontributestothedevelopmentoftheTISapproachbydeepening

theunderstandingoftheroleofaparticulartypeofactor(academia).Itprovides

insightsintohowthisactorinfluencesinnovationsubprocessesandenablessystem

dynamics.Thiscontributioncomesintheformofmicrolevelfoundationsfor

understandingthedynamicsofinnovationsystems.56Thisthesistraceshowarangeof

academicR&Dactivities(suchaseducatingastudent)contributestomicrolevelchanges

(suchasapolicy‐maker’sdecision),whicharedeeplyintertwinedwiththeactionsof

othersthroughasequence,eventuallycontributingtosystemicimpactsatthemesolevel

(suchasthedevelopmentofamarket).Othercontributionsinunderstandinga

particularactor’sinfluenceonTISdynamicscomesfromHillmanetal.(2011),whofocus

56MarkardandTruffer(2008)emphasisedtheimportanceoflayingoutthemicro‐foundationforTISdynamics.

42

ontheroleofgovernanceandpolicyactors;AnderssonandVargas(2010),whodescribe

impactsfromresearchinstitutes;andMusiolik(2012),whostudieshowthestrategic

movesoffirmsinfluenceaTIS.Together,theseapproachesenabledeeperknowledgeof

howaTISevolves.

Second,thethesiscontributestorefiningthelistofsubprocessesofinnovationintheTIS

approach.Variationshavebeenoffered,andthislistisstillevolving.Thecontribution

fromthisthesisincludesreplacingthesubprocessdevelopmentofpositiveexternalities

withsocialcapitaldevelopment.Thecontributionalsoincludepointingtohowsome

subprocessesinvolvefeaturesthat,dependingontheresearchquestion,couldbequite

different.Forinstance,someversionsofthelistofTISsubprocesseshavedivided

knowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionintotwoseparatesubprocesses(e.g.,Hekkertand

Negro,2009;Hekkertetal.,2007).However,Lundvall(2010a)emphasisestheclose

interactionbetweenknowledgedevelopmentanddiffusionrelatedtointeractive

learning.Still,someutilitiesidentifiedinthisthesisclearlyemphasiseknowledge

development(suchaspushingtheresearchfrontierinabasicresearchproject),while

othersemphasiseknowledgediffusion(suchasbeinganodeoragatekeepertoa

network).Similarly,theimpactonresourcemobilisationoftenconcernoneresource,

namelyhumancapital.Thus,thefindingsinthisthesisopenupfordiscussingthelistof

subprocessesandexploringhowitcanbeadaptedtotheneedsofparticularapplications

oftheTISapproach.

Third,theconceptofsequencesofimpactenablesexploringindirectandlong‐term

impactbyinterdependencesbetweendifferentTISsubprocesses.Bytracingthe

sequenceofimpactfromonesubprocesstoanother,theinterdependenceisestablished

atthemicrolevel,addingtotheunderstandingofhowthesystemunfolds.Thisaddsto

theworkofothers,suchas(Suurs,2009),onsubprocessinterdependences.

Fourth,thisthesisoffersarathernewtakeonTISdelineation.Theconventional

delineationofaTISisaroundoneorasetofpredefinedtechnologiesorknowledge

fields.Inthecaseofthephysicsprofessor,thedevelopmentoftheareaofresearch

policy,whichisnotaconventionaltechnologicalknowledgefield,wasstudiedasaTIS.

However,TISsubprocesseswereuseful,mainlybecausethesubprocessesintheTIS

describetheconditionsforstructuralchangeingeneral.Thesubprocessesareextracted

43

frominnovationliteraturethatnotonlycovertechnological,butalsoorganisational,

innovations(Bergeketal.,2008a).

Contributionstotheresearchpolicyfieldwithrespecttoacademicutility

Afirstcontributionofthisthesisisproposingaconceptualisationofthegenerationof

utilityfromacademicresearchthatoffersanalternativetothenarrowfocuson

performancemeasurementsandcommercialisation.Thisthesisillustratesawiderange

ofutilities,ofwhichmanyaresubtleandqualitative.Theofferedframeworkenables

analysesthatcapturesuchutilities,andcontributestohandlingtheproblemwiththe

longtimelagsuptothepointwhenthefullimpactofacademicR&Dunfolds.57

Asecondcontributionisproposingaconceptualisationofthegenerationofutilitythat

offersanalternativetothelinearmodelofinnovation.Thelinearmodelassumesthat

researchismerelyinitialinputtoinnovation;thereisnofeedbackbetweenresearchand

otherpartsoftheprocess;andthatspecificvolumesofhigh‐qualityresearch

automaticallyresultincorrespondingvolumesofinnovationoutput.Incontrast,this

thesisshowsthat(a)academicR&Dplaysmultiplerolesindiversepartofthe

innovationprocessbeyondonlyinitialinput,(b)numerousfeedbacksexistbetween

academiaandfactorsrelatedtovariouspartsoftheinnovationprocess,and(c)

contextualfactorsconditionutilitydevelopment,whichimpliesthattheimpacton

innovationofaspecificvolumeofresearchmayvaryinbothsizeandform.Thisfitswell

withthecallforapplyingasystemsapproachtocapturingutilitiesfromacademicR&D

(e.g.,Arnold,2004;Hughes,2006;MartinandTang,2007).Thisthesisputsforwarda

frameworkthatappliessuchasystemsapproach.Itallowsidentifyingandaccounting

formultidimensionalutilitiesthatincludefeedbacksandopensupforexplaininghow

contextualfactorsconditionutilities.

Athirdcontributiondigsdeeperintothecausalitiesofhowutilitiesaregenerated.This

frameworkofferstoolstotraceutilitiesascontributionstomicrolevelchanges(suchas

policy‐makers’decisions)which,deeplyintertwinedwiththeactionsofothers,resultin

subprocessimpacts(suchasstrengthenedlegitimation)andfurthercontributeto

impactsatamesolevel(suchastheemergenceofanindustry).Therefore,this57Whileotherapproachestraceutilitiesintermsofsnapshotsofsomeoutcomes,suchasnumberoffirms,patentsandlicenses,thisframeworkfocusesonchangesinthesubprocessesthatmaybeidentifiedbeforechangesinthestructureappear.

44

frameworkprovidesanopportunityforextendingresearchevaluationapproachesthat

merelybuildonaggregationsofacademicR&Doutput(suchasnumberofpapers,public

appearancesorpatents)toincludecasuallinks.

Afourthcontributionincludesdeepeningtheunderstandingoftheroleofacademiain

innovationsystems.Thisopensupforexploringlinkstootherconceptualisationsof

science,suchasthemode2ofknowledgeproductionandthetriplehelix.Althoughthese

approachesareoftenseenasunrelatedoptionstotheinnovationsystemsconcept,they

sharethekeyaspectofcontinuousandsubtleinteractionbetweenacademiaandits

settings(Lundvall,2010b).

6.3. Implicationsforpolicy

Thisthesishasimplicationsforresearchpolicy.First,policyshouldsupportthe

developmentofaninformedviewonresearchutilitythatacknowledgesthegreat

diversityofimpactsfromacademicR&D,includingindirectandlong‐termimpacts.In

particular,theviewsof(a)directcommercialisationasakeymechanismformaking

researchuseful,and(b)insufficientcommercialisation(fewgoldeneggs)asanevidence

ofpooreffectsofacademicresearch,shouldbequestioned,giventheresultsinthis

thesis.58Policiesbasedonmisleadingviewsofhowresearchismadeusefulmayresultin

misspentresourcesandunintendedconsequences,suchasamisguidedpressureon

academicresearcherstodeliverutilitiesthatmaybeoflittlerelevancetotheirsetting.

Second,policyshouldoffersupportsystemsthatinducedevelopingawidesetofutilities

andmovebeyondthosefocusingexclusivelyonproducingspecificandtangibleproducts

oroutcomes,suchaspatentsandpublications,orsupportingconventional

commercialisation.Currentsupportsystemsformakingresearchusefulatuniversities

arestilldominatedbyincubatorprogramsandtechnologylicenseofficesthatfailto

supportawidersetofutilities.59Supportsystemsshouldalsoinducethedevelopmentof

58TherearesignsofachangeinthisperceptionintheSwedishresearchpolicydebate.Forinstance,amorediverseviewofutilitiesfromacademicR&DwasdisplayedbysomekeyactorsduringaseminarhostedbytheRoyalInstituteofTechnology(KTH,2013).59Thisisslowlychanging.Forinstance,oneofthemostactiveuniversityofficesforinnovationinSweden,theInnovationskontorVäst,haslatelyadoptedawiderviewonresearchutilisationandexpandedtheiractivitiesaccordingly.TheongoingworkatChalmersUniversityofTechnologyonresearchcollaborationandutilisationalsoreflectsabroaderview.

45

utilitiesthatmaybesubtleandthatprovidevaluetobeneficiariesindirectandindirect

ways.

Third,asystemsperspectiveonpolicy‐makingshouldbeappliedwhenaimingto

improveacademicutilitygeneration.Solelyfocusingondirectresearchpolicymeasures

willlimittheextenttowhichpolicycaninduceutilitygeneration.Instead,measuresthat

combineandcoordinateseveralpolicyareas,suchasenvironmental,industrialand

energy,mayberequired.Aclearexampleofthiswasthenanotechnologycase,where

severalblockingmechanismsthatrequiredpolicyattentionconcernedotherpolicy

areasbesidesresearch.Also,assystemchallengesvarydependingonthedomain(such

asanindustry,asocietalsectororatechnology),asystemsperspectiveonpolicy‐

makingrequiresdomain‐specificcompetence.Theserequirementspresentagreat

challengeforpolicy,sincethereoftenaresubstantialdifferencesintheperceptionsand

tasksofpolicyactorsindifferentareas,aswellasinertiatochange.Policyorganisations

serveunderaregimebuiltonprecedingpolicytasksthatansweredtooutdatedblocking

mechanisms.Coordinationbetweennewcombinationsofpolicyareasisessentialto

supportthedevelopmentofanewarea,and,thus,thecorrespondingutilitiesfromR&D.

Fourth,thisthesishighlightsgreatchallengeswhenassessingtheutilityofacademic

R&D.Giventhedynamicandcontext‐dependentnatureofutilitiesfromacademicR&D,

researchevaluationsshouldbeconductedwithgreatcare.Theimplicationsofany

researchevaluationshouldbedrawnwithcautionandfirstandforemostprovidethe

foundationfordiscussionandlearning.Nevertheless,theresultsinthisthesisoffer

guidanceindevelopingappropriateresearchevaluationschemes,recommendingthe

useofschemesthataccountforlong‐term,multidimensionalutilitiesandconsiderthe

influencefromthewidercontext.Solelyfocusingonquantifiableindicatorsnarrowed

downtospin‐offs,patentsandpublications,failstocapturethefullimpact.Inaddition,

largelyrelyingonimpactindicators(suchasfirmgrowthormarketshares)thatare

conditionedbyfactorswhicharedifficultforacademiatoinfluencewillnotdelivera

realisticassessmentoftheimpact.Therefore,anappropriateevaluationschemeshould,

tentatively,accountforawidesetofutilities;includequantitativeindicatorsonactivity

levels;andcomprisequalitativeindicatorsonimpactintheformofcasestoriesthattake

intoaccountindirectimpacts,includingsequencesofimpact.Thiswouldallowforex‐

46

antereasoningonpotentialutilitiesfromactivitiesandex‐postevaluationsbasedon

qualitativeindicatorsthatarewellgroundedinrealsettings.

Fifth,researchevaluationandsupportsystemsforresearchutilityshouldacknowledge

thatresearchersandresearchgroupsundertakedifferenttypesofactivitiesandenact

differentrolesinmakingscienceuseful.Comparingresearchersandresearchgroups

independentlyandassessingthemonthesamecriteriawillnottakeintoaccounttheir

systemicvalue.Thesystemicvaluearisesfromthecomplementaritybetweenindividual

researchers,orgroups,andtheiracademiccolleagues.

Sixth,thisthesishasimplicationsforthepolicydebateonneeds‐drivenresearchin

relationtocuriosity‐drivenresearch.60Thisthesisshowstheutilityofabroadspectrum

ofdifferenttypesofresearch,spanningfromprovidinguniversaltheoriesthatlaythe

groundforfurtherknowledgedevelopmentsandcoverfutureuncertainties,tocontract

researchthatrespondstospecificcurrentneeds.61Italsoillustrateshowdifferenttypes

ofresearcharecomplementaryingeneratingutilities.Feedbackandconnectivityarethe

keyaspectsinthis,bothbetweenthediversityoftypesofresearchinthisspectrumand

betweenresearchandtheoutsideworldthatformulateneeds.Asneedschangeover

time,sometimeswithveryshorttimescales,adisproportionatefocusonneeds‐driven

researchrisksexhaustingknowledgedevelopment,asknowledgeadvancesthatneed

longtimescaleswillnotbegivenspace.Yet,toostrongafocusondisconnectedand

purelycuriosity‐drivenresearchrisksmissingoutonitsmissiontocontributetosocietal

development.Instead,policyshouldstriveforabalancebetweenlong‐termandshort‐

termknowledgedevelopments,appropriateresponsivenesstocontemporarysocietal

needsandconnectivitybetweendiverseknowledgedevelopments.

6.4. Areasforfurtherresearch

Asafollowuptothisthesis,thereareanumberofresearchareasworthexploringmore.

First,onlythreecasestudiesofvaryingscopeswereincluded.Morecasesareneededto

furtherexploretheframeworkandmanifestgeneralobservationsregardingpatternsof

60Thesetworesearchdriversaresimilartothemode1andmode2ofknowledgeproduction(Gibbonsetal.,1994).ThisimplicationwasdevelopedincorrespondencewithProfessorBengtKasemo.61Inreality,thisdistinctionisnotveryclearamongresearchpractitioners.Thedebatehasmainlybeenamongpolicy‐makers.Also,aparticulartypeofresearch(needs‐driven/curiosity‐driven)doesnotalwaysgenerateacertainkindofutility(universaltheories/specificandcurrentneeds).

47

utilities,sequencesandrolesthatresearchersenact.Additionalcasestudiesshould

preferablyincludeotherfieldsofknowledge,industrylife‐cyclephases,typesof

customersorregionalsettingsthanthosecoveredinthisthesis.Undoubtedly,new

considerationsrelatedtotheframeworkandmethodwillemerge,pointingtoareasof

improvement.

Second,thecomplementarityanddivisionoflabourbetweendifferenttypesof

researchersandresearchgroupscouldbeexploredmoretobetterunderstandthe

dynamicinteractionbetweendifferenttypesofresearch.Theofferedtypologyofroles

appearstobeasuitabletoolforthis.Complementarityanddivisionoflabourcouldalso

beexploredbetweenacademicactorsandothertypesofactors.Thepossibilityof

includingtheseaspectsinresearchassessmenttoolscouldalsobeexplored.

Athirdlineoffutureresearchcouldexplorethehypotheticalutilitiesfromthe7x7

matrixthatremaintoberecognised.Figure5showssixunrecognisedhypothetical

utilities,inparticularlyrelatedtothesubprocessofmarketformation.Additionalworkis

neededtoeitherrevealtheseimpacts,orexplaintheirabsence.Thiscouldbe

undertakenintheformofanextendedliteratureanalysisorin‐depthcasestudies.

Fourth,theviabilityofresearchevaluationschemesusedbypolicy‐makersand

consultantscouldbeevaluatedusingtheframeworkinthisthesis.Asthisthesishas

broughtforthrichdescriptionswithhighrealismofcontext,itoffersapointofreference

fortestinghowwellcurrentevaluationschemesreflectreality.Aretheysufficiently

workableproxiesoftherealimpact,ordotheymissoutonsignificantutilities?

Assessmentsofschemescouldbeconductedthroughparallelstudiesoftheutilities

generatedbyaparticularresearchgroup,usingbothexistingevaluationsschemesand

theframeworkofthisthesis.

Fifth,theframeworkofthisthesisprovidesthefoundationfordevelopinganalternative

evaluationschemethatismultidimensional,dynamicandcontext‐dependent.Although

theframeworkprovedusefulasascholarlytool,conductingthecasestudieswastime‐

consuming,implyingthatconventionalevaluationschemeshavesignificantfeasibility

advantages.Thus,itisnecessarytorationalisetheframeworktomakeitusefulasa

researchevaluationscheme.Thiswouldincludetwosteps.First,asurveyofalarger

numberofacademicresearchers,companiesandpolicyactorscouldbeconductedto

48

collectawidesetofindicatorsonactivitylevel.Second,thiscouldbefollowedupwith

impact‐levelcasestoriesthatcaptureandexplainutilities,eveninsequencesofimpact.

Theframeworkalsoopensupforthedevelopmentofevaluationschemesbasedonthe

typologyofroles.

49

References

Andersson,J.,Vargas,C.,2010.PotentialRolesofTechnicalResearchInstitutesforPromotingOnnovation.DepartmentofEnergyandEnvironment.ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,Göteborg,Sweden.

Arnold,E.,2004.Evaluatingresearchandinnovationpolicy:Asystemsworldneedssystemsevaluations.ResearchEvaluation13,3–17.

Asheim,B.T.,Coenen,L.,2006.Contextualisingregionalinnovationsystemsinaglobalisinglearningeconomy:Onknowledgebasesandinstitutionalframeworks.JournalofTechnologyTransfer31,163–173.

Bergek,A.,Jacobsson,S.,Carlsson,B.,etal.,2008a.Analyzingthefunctionaldynamicsoftechnologicalinnovationsystems:Aschemeofanalysis.ResearchPolicy37,407–429.

Bergek,A.,Jacobsson,S.,Sandén,B.,2008b.‘Legitimation’and‘developmentofexternaleconomies’:Twokeyprocessesintheformationphaseoftechnologicalinnovationsystems.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement20,575–592.

Boden,R.,Cox,D.,Nedeva,M.,2006.Theapplianceofscience?Newpublicmanagementandstrategicchange.TechnologyAnalysisandStrategicManagement18,125–141.

Bonaccorsi,A.,Piccaluga,A.,1994.AtheorethicalframeworkfortheevaluationofUniversity‐Industryrelationship.R&DManagement24,229–247.

Bozeman,B.,2000.Technologytransferandpublicpolicy:A‐reviewofresearchandtheory.ResearchPolicy29,627–655.

Bozeman,B.,Sarewitz,D.,2011.Publicvaluemappingandsciencepolicyevaluation.Minerva49,1–23.

Bramwell,A.,Wolfe,D.A.,2008.Universitiesandregionaleconomicdevelopment:TheentrepreneurialUniversityofWaterloo.ResearchPolicy37,1175–1187.

Breschi,S.,Malerba,F.,2013.Sectoralsystemsofinnovation:Technologicalregimes,Schumpeteriandynamicsandspatialboundaries,in:Edquist,C.(Eds.)SystemsofInnovation:Technologies,InstitutionsandOrganizations.London:Routledge.

Carlsson,B,Elg,LandJacobsson,S.,2010.Reflectionsontheco‐evolutionofinnovationtheory,policyandpractice:TheemergenceoftheSwedishAgencyforInnovationSystems,in:Smits,R.,Kuhlmann,S.,Shapira,P.,(Eds.)InnovationPolicy,TheoryandPractice.AnInternationalHandbook.Cheltenham,U.K.:ElgarPublishers.

Carlsson,B.,Jacobsson,S.,Holmén,M.,Rickne,A.,2002.Innovationsystems:Analyticalandmethodologicalissues.ResearchPolicy31,233–245.

Carlsson,B.,Stankiewicz,R.,1991.Onthenature,functionandcompositionoftechnologicalsystems.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics1,93–118.

Cohen,W.M.,Nelson,R.R.,Walsh,J.P.,2002.Linksandimpacts:TheinfluenceofpublicresearchonindustrialR&D.ManagementScience48,1–23.

Dahmén,E.,1988.‘Developmentblocks’inindustrialeconomics.ScandinavianEconomicHistoryReview36,3–14.

50

D’Este,P.,Patel,P.,2007.University‐industrylinkagesintheUK:Whatarethefactorsunderlyingthevarietyofinteractionswithindustry?ResearchPolicy36,1295–1313.

Drucker,J.,Goldstein,H.,2007.Assessingtheregionaleconomicdevelopmentimpactsofuniversities:Areviewofcurrentapproaches.InternationalRegionalScienceReview30,20–46.

Dubois,A.,Gadde,L.E.,2002.Systematiccombining:anabductiveapproachtocaseresearch.JournalofBusinessResearch55,7,553–560.

Eisenhardt,K.M.,1989.Buildingtheoriesfromcasestudyresearch.TheAcademyofManagementReview14,532–550.

Elg,L.,Håkansson,S.,2011.Närstatenspelatroll–lärdomaravVINNOVAseffektstudier.VINNOVAAnalys,VA2011:10,TheSwedishGovernmentalAgencyforInovationSystem,Stockholm.

Etzkowitz,H.,Leydesdorff,L.,2000.Thedynamicsofinnovation:Fromnationalsystemsand“mode2”toatriplehelixofuniversity‐industry‐governmentrelations.ResearchPolicy29,109–123.

Fagerberg,J.,2003.Schumpeterandtherevivalofevolutionaryeconomics:Anappraisaloftheliterature.Journalofevolutionaryeconomics13,2,125–159.

Fagerberg,J.,Verspagen,B.,2009.Innovationstudies:Theemergingstructureofanewscientificfield.ResearchPolicy38,218–233.

Faulkner,W.,Senker,J.,1995.KnowledgeFrontiers,PublicSectorResearchandIndustrialInnovationinBiotechnology,EngineeringCeramics,andParallelComputing.Oxford,U.K.:OxfordUniversityPress.

Flyvbjerg,B.,2006.Fivemisunderstandingsaboutcasestudyresearch.QualitativeInquiry12,219–245.

Fogelberg,H.,Sandén,B.A.,2008.Understandingreflexivesystemsofinnovation:AnanalysisofSwedishnanotechnologydiscourseandorganization.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement20,65–81.

Freeman,C.,1987.Technology,policy,andeconomicperformance:LessonsfromJapan.London:PinterPublishers.

Freeman,C.,1994.Theeconomicsoftechnicalchange.CambridgeJournalofEconomics18,463–514.

Gabrielsson,J.,Politis,D.,Dahlstrand,Å.L.,2013.Patentsandentrepreneurship:Theimpactofopportunity,motivationandability.InternationalJournalofEntrepreneurshipandSmallBusiness19,142–166.

Geiger,R.L.,2006.TheQuestFor"EconomicRelevance"byUSresearchuniversities.HigherEducationPolicy19,411–431.

Geiger,R.L.,2008.Tappingtherichesofscience:Universitiesandthepromiseofeconomicgrowth.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Gibbons,M.,Johnston,R.,1974.Therolesofscienceintechnologicalinnovation.ResearchPolicy3,220–242.

Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Nowotny,H.,etal.,1994.Thenewproductionofknowledge:Thedynamicsofscienceandresearchincontemporarysocieties.London:SAGEPublications.

51

Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Scott,P.,2011.RevisitingMode2atNoorsSlott.Prometheus29,361–372.

Godin,B.,2006.Thelinearmodelofinnovation:Thehistoricalconstructionofananalyticalframework.Science,Technology,&HumanValues31,639–667

Hekkert,M.P.,Negro,S.O.,2009.Functionsofinnovationsystemsasaframeworktounderstandsustainabletechnologicalchange:Empiricalevidenceforearlierclaims.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange76,584–594.

Hekkert,M.P.,Suurs,R.A.A.,Negro,S.O.,etal.,2007.Functionsofinnovationsystems:Anewapproachforanalysingtechnologicalchange.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange74,413–432.

Hellsmark,H.,2010.UnfoldingtheformativephaseofgasifiedbiomassintheEuropeanUnion:Theroleofsystembuildersinrealisingthepotentialofsecond‐generationtransportationfuelsfrombiomass.PhDthesis,DepartmentofEnergyandEnvironment,ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,Gothenburg,Sweden.

Hellsmark,H.,Jacobsson,S.,2009.Opportunitiesforandlimitstoacademicsassystembuilders:ThecaseofrealizingthepotentialofgasifiedbiomassinAustria.EnergyPolicy37,5597–5611.

Hillman,K.,Nilsson,M.,Rickne,A.,Magnusson,T.,2011.Fosteringsustainabletechnologies:aframeworkforanalysingthegovernanceofinnovationsystems.ScienceandPublicPolicy38,403–415.

Hughes,A.,2006.UniversityIndustryLinkagesandUKScienceandInnovationPolicy.CBRWorkingPaperSeriesWP326,CentreforBusinessResearch,UniversityofCambridge.

Håkansson,H.,1989.CorporateTechnologicalBehaviour:Co‐operationsandNetworks.London:Routledge.

Ingelstam,L.,2002.System:atttänkaöversamhälleochteknik.Energimyndigheten,theSwedishenergyagency,Stockholm.

Jacobsson,S.,2002.Universitiesandindustrialtransformation:AninterpretativeliteraturestudywithspecialemphasisonSweden.ScienceandPublicPolicy29,345–365.

Jacobsson,S.,Bergek,A.,2004.Transformingtheenergysector:theevolutionoftechnologicalsystemsinrenewableenergytechnology.IndustrialandCorporateChange13,815–849.

Jacobsson,S.,Lindholm‐Dahlstrand,Å.,2006.Howdowetrace,measureandexplainthesocietaleffectsofacademicR&D?,ResearchproposalsubmittedtoVINNOVA,ChalmersUniversityofTechnologyandHalmstadUniversity,Gothenburg,Sweden.

Jacobsson,S.,Lindholm‐Dahlstrand,Å.,Elg,L.,2013.IsthecommercializationofEuropeanacademicR&Dweak?Acriticalassessmentofadominantbeliefandassociatedpolicyresponses.ResearchPolicy42,874–885.

Johnson,A.,Jacobsson,S.,2001.Inducementandblockingmechanismsinthedevelopmentofanewindustry:ThecaseofrenewableenergytechnologyinSweden,in:Coombs,R.,Green,K.,Richards,A.&Walsh,V.(Eds.),TechnologyandtheMarket.Demand,UsersandInnovation.Cheltenham,U.K.:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd,pp89–111.

52

Kline,S.J.,Rosenberg,N.,1986.Anoverviewofinnovation,in:Landau,R.,Rosenberg,N.(Eds.),ThePositiveSumStrategy:HarnessingTechnologyforEconomicGrowth.NationalWashingtonD.C.:AcademyPress,275–305.

Kurzweil,R.,2005.TheSingularityisNear:WhenHumansTranscendBiology.NewYork:Viking,PenguinGroup.

KTH,2013,Hurbedömanyttanavforskning?,aseminaratAlmedalenWeekhostedbytheRoyalInstituteofTechnology,KTH,2July,Visby,Swedenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROaVommljE,accessed19August,2013.

Laursen,K.,Salter,A.,2004.Searchinghighandlow:Whattypesoffirmsuseuniversitiesasasourceofinnovation?ResearchPolicy33,1201–1215.

LawtonSmith,H.,LindholmDahlstrand,Å.andBaines,N.,2013.Reconsideringtheprofessor'sprivilege:UniversitytechnologytransferinSwedenandtheUK.Paperpresentedatthe16thUddevallaSymposium2013onInnovation,High‐GrowthEntrepreneurshipandRegionalDevelopment.

Levin,R.C.,Klevorick,A.K.,Nelson,R.R.,etal.,1987.AppropriatingtheReturnsfromIndustrialResearchandDevelopment.BrookingsPapersonEconomicActivity1987,783–831.

LindholmDahlstrand,Å.,2008.Universityknowledgetransferandtheroleofacademicspin‐offs,in:Potter,J.(Ed.),EntrepreneurshipandHigherEducation.OECD,Paris,235–254.

Lundvall,B.Å.,2010a.NationalSystemsofInnovation:TowardaTheoryofInnovationandInteractiveLearning.London:AnthemPress.

Lundvall,B.‐Å.,2010b.Postscript:Innovationsystemresearch:Whereitcamefromandwhereitmightgo,in:Lundvall,B.‐Å.(Ed.),NationalSystemsofInnovation:TowardaTheoryofInnovationandInteractiveLearning.London:AnthemPress,317–349.

Marx,K.,2001.DasKapital.Washington,D.C.:RegneryPublishing,reprint.Originallypublishedin1887.

Mansfield,E.,1995.Academicresearchunderlyingindustrialinnovations:Sources,characteristics,andFinancing.ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics77,55–65.

Mansfield,E.,1998.Academicresearchandindustrialinnovation:Anupdateofempiricalfindings.ResearchPolicy26,773–776.

Markard,J.,Truffer,B.,2008.Technologicalinnovationsystemsandthemulti‐levelperspective:Towardanintegratedframework.ResearchPolicy37,596–615.

Marshall,C.,Rossman,G.B.,2010.DesigningQualitativeResearch.ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.

Martin,B.R.,Tang,P.,2007.Thebenefitsfrompubliclyfundedresearch.SPRUElectronicWorkingPaperSeries,Brighton,U.K..

Mazzoleni,R.,2005.ThecontributionoftheEscoladeMinastothedevelopmentofBrazil’sironindustry(1876–1930),2005EBHSConference,HighPoint,N.C..

Meyer‐Krahmer,F.,Schmoch,U.,1998.Science‐basedtechnologies:University‐industryinteractionsinfourfields.ResearchPolicy27,835–851.

53

Mohamad,Z.F.,2009.Theroleofuniversitiesinnationalcatching‐upstrategies:FuelcelltechnologyinMalaysiaandSingapore.PhDthesis,SPRU,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,U.K..

Molas‐Gallart,J.,Salter,A.,Patel,P.,etal.,2002.Measuringthirdstreamactivities:FinalreporttotheRussellGroupofUniversities.SPRU,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,U.K..

Mowery,D.,Sampat,B.N.,2005.Universitiesinnationalinnovationsystems,in:Fagerberg,J.,Mowery,D.,Nelson,R.R.(Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofInnovation.OxfordUniversityPress,209–239.

Musiolik,J.,2012.Innovationsystem‐building:Ontheroleofactors,networksandresources.ThecaseofstationaryfuelcellsinGermany.PhDthesis,UtrechtUniversity.

Nelson,R.R.,1964.Aggregateproductionfunctionsandmedium‐rangegrowthprojections.AmericanEconomicReview54,575–606.

Nelson,R.R.,Winter,S.G.,1977.Insearchofusefultheoryofinnovation.ResearchPolicy6,36–76.

OECD,2009.Enhancingpublicresearchperformancethroughevaluation,impactassessmentandprioritysetting.CommitteeonScienceandTechnologyPolicy/WorkingPartyonInnovationandTechnologyPolicy,OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment,Paris,France.

OECD,2012.Newstrategiesandpoliciesforthetransfer,exploitationandcommercialisationofpublicresearchresults.DSTI/STP/TIP(2012)20/REV1.WorkingPartyonInnovationandTechnologyPolicy,OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment,Paris,France.

Pavitt,K.,1998.Thesocialshapingofthenationalsciencebase.ResearchPolicy27,793–805.

Perkmann,M.,Tartari,V.,McKelvey,M.,etal,2013.Academicengagementandcommercialisation:Areviewoftheliteratureonuniversity‐industryrelations.ResearchPolicy42,423–442.

PålssonSyll,L.,1998.Deekonomiskateoriernashistoria.Lund:Studentlitteratur.

Rip,A.,2003.SocietalchallengesforR&Devaluation,in:Shapira,P.,Kuhlmann,S.(Eds.),LearningfromScienceandTechnologyPolicyEvaluation.Cheltenham,U.K.:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd.,32–53.

Rip,A.,2011.Thefutureofresearchuniversities.Prometheus29,443–453.

Porter,M.E.,1998.Clustersandtheneweconomicsofcompetition.HarvardBusinessReviewNovember–December,77–90.

Rothaermel,F.T.,Agung,S.D.,Jiang,L.,2007.Universityentrepreneurship:Ataxonomyoftheliterature.IndustrialandCorporateChange16,691–791.

Salter,A.J.,D’Este,P.,Pavitt,K.,etal.,2000.Talent,nottechnology:TheimpactofpubliclyfundedresearchoninnovationintheUK.SPRU,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,U.K..

Salter,A.J.,Martin,B.R.,2001.Theeconomicbenefitsofpubliclyfundedbasicresearch:Acriticalreview.ResearchPolicy30,509–532.

Sandén,B.,Harvey,S.,2008.Systemsanalysisforenergytransition:Amappingofmethodologies,cooperationandcriticalissuesinenergysystemsstudiesatChalmers.

54

Report:CEC2008:2,ChalmersEnergiCentrum,ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,Göteborg,Sweden.

Sandén,B.A.,Jacobsson,S.,Palmblad,L.,Porsö,J.,2008.AssessmentoftheimpactofamarketformationprogrammeontheSwedishPVinnovationsystem,DIMEInternationalConference:Innovation,sustainabilityandpolicy,UniversityMontesquieuBordeauxIV,Bordeaux,France.

Saxenian,A.,1994.RegionalAdvantage,CultureandCompetitioninSiliconValleyandRoute128.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Schumpeter,J.,2008.TheTheoryofEconomicDevelopment.NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,14thprinting.Originallypublished,1934.

Schmookler,J.,1966.InventionandEconomicGrowth.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Scott,A.,Steyn,G.,Geuna,A.,etal.,2001.Theeconomicreturnstobasicresearchandthebenefitsofuniversity‐industryrelationships.Aliteraturereviewandupdateoffindings.SPRU,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,U.K..

Shane,S.,2004.AcademicEntrepreneurship:UniversitySpinoffsandWealthCreation.Cornwall:EdwardElgarPublishing,.

Sharif,N.,2006.Emergenceanddevelopmentofthenationalinnovationsystemsconcept.ResearchPolicy35,745–766.

Sismondo,S.,2004.AnIntroductiontoScienceandTechnologyStudies.Oxford,U.K.:BlackwellPublishing.

Smith,A.,2007.WealthofNations.CosimoIncorporated.NewYork:Reprint.Originallypublished:1901.

Suurs,R.,2009.Motorsofsustainableinnovation.Towardsatheoryonthedynamicsoftechnologicalinnovationsystems.PhDthesis,InnovationStudiesGroup,CopernicusInstitute.UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands.

SverigesRadio,2012.Regeringenmåstesatsapåuppfinnare,tyckerSocialdemokraterna,RadiointerviewwithAnnieLööfandJennieNilsson,P1‐morgon,SverigesRadio,Stockholm,Sweden.

Weber,K.M.,Rohracher,H.,2012.Legitimizingresearch,technologyandinnovationpoliciesfortransformativechange:Combininginsightsfrominnovationsystemsandmulti‐levelperspectiveinacomprehensive‘failures’framework.ResearchPolicy41,1037–1047.

Documents

The Impact of Academia on the Dynamics of Innovation …The Impact of Academia on the Dynamics of Innovation Systems: Capturing and explaining utilities from academic R&D Eugenia Perez