Influencia de variables individuales y grupales en la actitud de los investigadores españoles hacia la transferencia de conocimiento y la cooperación con empresas y administraciones públicas

  1. Díaz-Catalán, Celia 1
  2. López-Navarro, Irene 2
  3. Rey Rocha, Jesús 3
  4. Cabrera Álvarez, Pablo 4
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
  2. 2 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas ; Universidad de Salamanca, España
  3. 3 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, España
  4. 4 Universidad de Salamanca, España
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614 1988-4621

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 42

Issue: 2

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2019.2.1576 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista española de documentación científica


National and supranational governments have promoted knowledge transfer policies for the generation of socio-economic impacts by intersectional cooperation. However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the mechanisms that generate the attitudes conducive that lead to such transfer. From the responses of 851 leaders of Spanish research groups in four regions ?Andalucía, Canarias, Madrid and País Vasco? three logistic regression models have been generated in order to measure the influence of individual and group variables on the more or less proactive attitude of the researchers towards cooperation with non-academic partners ?businesses and public administrations?. Our results refine the hypothesis of the “virtuous circle” regarding knowledge transfer, giving a negative role to previous collaboration with public administrations. Discipline and age have not been significant factores in this model, while academic achievements and motivation have played a less prominent role than expected.

Funding information

This work has been carried out based on the ICUE project: “University-business cooperation in the Spanish R&D system: opinions and experiences of the research groups”, directed by Irene Ramos-Vielba, financed by the National Plan of Scientific Research, Development and Innovation (Ref.: CSO2009-07805). The authors would like to thank all the participants in the ICUE project for their interest and collaboration throughout the work. They also want to thank especially the contributions of Pablo D’Este, Ana Fernández-Zubieta, Elisabetta Marinelli and Teresa González de la Fe during the seminar held within the framework of the project.

Bibliographic References

  • Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33 (2-3), 50-65.
  • Audretsch, D. B.; Bönte, W.; Krabel, S. (2010). Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. DRUID Working Paper 10-27. Copenhague: DRUID.
  • Bacher, J.; Wenzig, K.; Vogler, M. (2004). SPSS TwoStep Cluster-a first evaluation. Working Paper Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut Lehrstuhl für Soziologie 2004- 2. Nürnberg: Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
  • Barnes, S. B.; Dolby, R. G. (1970). The scientific ethos: A deviant viewpoint. European Journal of Sociology, 11 (01), 3-25.
  • Bayona Sáez, C.; Huerta Arribas, E. (2002). Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms. R&D Management, 32 (4): 321-341.
  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies 39 (1): 61-74.
  • Bozeman, B.; Fay, D.; Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (1), 1-67.
  • Castro Martínez, E.; Fernández de Lucio, I.; Pérez Marín, M.; Criado Boado, F. (2006). Una aproximación a las características de la transferencia de conocimientos en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. En: Ibarra, A.; Castro, J.; Rocca, L. (eds.), Las ciencias sociales y las humanidades en los sistemas de innovación, pp 97- 113. Guipuzkoa: Universidad del País Vasco.
  • Castro-Martínez, E.; Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2014). Características de las interacciones con la sociedad de los investigadores de humanidades y ciencias sociales a partir de estudios empíricos. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 9 (27), 113-141.
  • Chiu, T.; Fang, D.; Chen, J,; Wang, Y.; Jeris, C. (2001). A Robust and Scalable Clustering Algorithm for Mixed Type Attributes in Large Database Environment. Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 263-268, August 26-29, 2001, San Francisco, California.
  • COTEC (2015). Informe COTEC 2015: Tecnología e innovación en España. Madrid: Fundación Cotec para la Innovación Tecnológica.
  • COTEC (2017). Informe COTEC 2017: Innovación en España. Madrid: Fundación Cotec para la Innovación Tecnológica.
  • Cotillo Pereira, A.; Torres Albero, C. (1993). Una teoría sociológica de la innovación en la ciencia: la obra del primer Mulkay. Política y Sociedad, 14-15, 115-142.
  • Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2007). New Legitimation Models and the Transformation of the Public Research Organizational Field. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37 (1): 27- 52.
  • Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2016). The effects of the economic crisis on public research: Spanish budgetary policies and research organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113: 157- 167.
  • D’Este, P.; Guy, F.; Iammarino, S. (2012). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?. Journal of Economic Geography, 13 (4), 537-558.
  • D’Este, P.; Llopis, O.; Yegros, A. (2017). Conducting Pro-Social Research—Exploring the Behavioral Antecedents to Knowledge Transfer Among Scientists. En Siegel, D. (ed.), The world scientific reference on entrepreneurship: Volume 4: Process Approach to Academic Entrepreneurship—Evidence from the Globe, pp. 19-54. Albany: Default Book Series.
  • D’Este, P.; Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Research Policy, 36 (9): 1295-1313.
  • D’Este, P.; Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3): 316-339.
  • Dasgupta, P.; David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5): 487-521.
  • Díaz Catalán, C. (2016). Los investigadores y los sistemas de recompensas de la ciencia. Las tres misiones de las instituciones científicas y las dinámicas sociales de las carreras académicas. [Tesis doctoral]. Madrid: Universidad de Educación a Distancia.
  • European Commission (2012). The 2012 EU R&D Scoreboard Industrial Investment Scoreboard. Sevilla: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • European Commission (2013). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013. Belgium: European Union.
  • European Commission (2015). Flash Eurobarometer 415. Innobarometer 2015 - The innovation trends at EU enterprises”. Brussels: European Union.
  • Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Sebastián, J.; López-Facal, J.; Tortosa-Martorell, E. (2009). Anillos de crecimiento en el árbol de la ciencia. La evolución institucional del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 67 (2), 251-284.
  • Fernández Esquinas, M.; Merchán-Hernández, C.; Valmaseda-Andia, O.; Rodríguez-Brey, L. (2011). Indicadores de transferencia de conocimiento: una propuesta de medida de las relaciones descentralizadas entre universidad y empresa. En: Albornoz, M.; Plaza, L. (eds.). Agenda 2011. Temas de indicadores de ciencia y tecnología, pp. 311-334. Buenos Aires: Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología.
  • Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Ramos-Vielba, I. (2011). Emerging forms of cross-sector collaboration in the Spanish innovation system. Science and Public Policy, 38 (2), 135-146.
  • Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2015). El sistema nacional de I+D: políticas públicas y dinámicas organizativas. En: Torres Albero, C. (ed.). España 2015. Situación Social, pp. 69-85. Madrid: CIS.
  • Fernandez Zubieta, A. (2015). RIO Country Report Spain 2014. Sevilla: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • Fernández-Zubieta, A., Ramos-Vielba, I., Zacharewicz, T. (2018). RIO Country Report 2017: Spain. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978- 92 -79-81829-5.
  • Florida, R.; Cohen, W.M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. En: Branscomb, L.M.; Kodama, F.; Florida, R. (eds.). Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, pp. 589-610. London: MIT Press.
  • García, C. E.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2005). Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness: The Spanish R&D government funding. Scientometrics, 64 (3), 271-300.
  • Geuna, A.; Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35 (6), 790-807.
  • Haeussler, C.; Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40 (1), 41-54.
  • Heijs, J. J. (2012). Fallos sistémicos y de mercado en el sistema español de innovación. Información Comercial Española, ICE: Revista de Economía, 869, 43-64.
  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research policy, 41 (2), 251-261.
  • Jain, S.; George, G.; Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38 (6), 922-935.
  • Jiménez-Contreras, E.; de Moya Anegón, F.; Lopez- Cozar, E.D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32 (1), 123-142.
  • Lam, A. (2010). From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’?: Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-Industry Boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40 (2), 307-340.
  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40 (10), 1354-1368.
  • Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25 (6), 843- 863.
  • Liyanage, S.; Mitchell, H. (1994). Strategic management of interactions at the academic-industry interface. Technovation, 14 (10), 641-655.
  • López-Martínez, R.E. (1994). Motivations and obstacles to university industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican case. R&D Management, 24: 17–30.
  • López-Navarro, I; A. I. M., Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why publish in English versus Spanish?: Towards a framework for the study of researchers’ motivations. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38 (1), e073.
  • Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44 (7), 1341-1359.
  • Manjarrés-Henríquez, L.; Gutiérrez-Gracia, A.; Carrión- García, A.; Vega-Jurado, J. (2009). The effects of university–industry relationships and academic research on scientific performance: Synergy or substitution?. Research in Higher Education, 50 (8), 795-811.
  • Merton, R. K. (1977). La sociología de la ciencia. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.
  • Molero, J.; López, S. (2016). La industria española en las últimas cuatro décadas: cambio estructural e innovación tecnológica. Información Comercial Española, ICE: Revista de economía, 889, 121-138.
  • Mora Valentín, E.M. (2000). University-industry cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry and Higher Education, 14 (3), 165-172.
  • Morales-Gualdrón, S. T.; Gutiérrez-Gracia, A.; Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: a multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5 (3), 301-317.
  • Mulkay, M.J.; Turner, B.S. (1971). Over-production of personnel and innovation in three social settings. Sociology, 5 (1), 47-61.
  • Norusis, M.J. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Statistical Procedures Companion. Pearson.
  • Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2013a). Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy, 41 (3), 384-400.
  • Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Molas-Gallart, J.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2013b). Informal collaborations between social sciences and humanities researchers and non-academic partners. Science and Public Policy, 41 (4), 493-506.
  • Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What stimulates researchers to make their research usable? Towards an ‘openness’ approach. Minerva, 53 (4), 381-410.
  • Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Castro-Martínez, E.; D’Este, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy, 43 (4), 696-706.
  • Osuna, C.; Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2010). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86 (3), 575-592.
  • Owen-Smith, J.; Powell, W.W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15 (1), 5-21.
  • Parchomovsky, G. (2000). Publish or perish. Michigan Law Review, 98 (4), 926-952.
  • Perkmann, M.; Tartari, V.; McKelvey, M.; Autio, E.; Broström, A.; D’Este, P.; Hughes, A. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations”. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423-442.
  • Perkmann, M.; Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (4), 259-280.
  • Powell, W. W.; Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17 (2): 253-277.
  • Ramos Vielba, I. (2008). Mapa Iberoamericano de fortalezas y oportunidades en ciencia y tecnología. Madrid: CRUE.
  • Ramos-Vielba, I.; Albizu, E.; Díaz-Catalán, C.; Fernández- Esquinas, M.; González de la Fe, T.; Hernández, N.; Valmaseda, O. (2011). Una revisión de los sistemas regionales de I+D. Andalucía, Canarias, Madrid y País Vasco. Madrid: Fundación Ideas para el Progreso.
  • Ramos-Vielba, I.; Díaz-Catalán, C.; Calero, J. (2014). The motivations of research teams and their cooperation with industry. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 13 (1/2), 10-32.
  • Ramos-Vielba, I.; Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M.; Woolley, R. (2015). Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: motivations and barriers. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 41 (3), 558-585.
  • Rey Rocha, J.; Martín Sempere, M.J.; Sebastián, J. (2008) Structure and dynamics of research groups. Arbor, 184 (732), 743–757.
  • Sanz Menéndez, L.; Cruz Castro, L. (2005). Explaining the science and technology policies of regional governments. Regional Studies, 39 (7), 939-954.
  • Scandura, A. (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy, 45 (9), 1907- 1922.
  • Schartinger, D.; Schibany, A.; Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (3), 255-268.
  • Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A.; Atwater, L.E.; Link, A.N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14 (1), 111-133.
  • Slaughter, S.; Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Slaughter, S.; Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21 (3), 303-339.
  • Tartari, V.; Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21 (5), 1117-1147.
  • Valmaseda, O.; Albizu-Gallastegi, E.; Fernández Esquinas, M.; Fernández de Lucio, I. (2015). La relación entre las empresas españolas y el CSIC: motivaciones, mecanismos y beneficios desde la perspectiva empresarial. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38 (4), e109.
  • Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy, 32 (6), 1015-1029.
  • Zhang, T.; Ramakrishnon, R.; M. Livny. (1996). BIRCH: An efficient data clustering method for very large databases. En: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data. Montreal, Canada: ACM.