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.
Recommended
