دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله چشم اندازهای کلان، مزو و خرد انتقال فناوری (نشریه اسپرینگر 2018)

چشم اندازهای کلان، مزو و خرد انتقال فناوری

Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer

Abstract

Over the last few decades research into the different aspects of technology transfer has grown significantly that has taken in the main a macro perspective. This research has created a body of knowledge and an evidence base that has contributed original insights in developing the field and also has shaped policymaking and practice. Within the field there is a growing focus on meso and micro aspects of technology transfer and a growing interest in for example role individual actors such as scientists, principal investigators policy makers, TTO actors, supporting institutions and functions such as universities, professional research organizations, technology and knowledge transfer offices. This research is unearthing fine-grained nuances and insights that provide further evidence of how technology transfer activities are shaped and evolve in different geographical and organizational contexts. The purpose of this special issue is to provide a further understanding of macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer and to provide an agenda for further research that blends these multi-level perspectives of technology transfer.

1 Introduction

There has been a long tradition of macro perspectives of technology transfer that have laid the empirical and theoretical foundations within the feld. These draw from a range of diferent disciplines such as economics, management, innovation, public policy, strategic management and entrepreneurship. At a macro level this has generated evolving perspectives on for example the mechanisms, measurement, evaluation and efectiveness of technology transfer (see Autio and Laamanen 1995; Bozeman 2000; Cutler 1988; Rasmussen and Rice 2011; Phillips 2002; Siegel et al. 2007; Winebrake 1992). At the macro perspective researchers, endeavors have tackled some of the fundamental questions in relation technology transfer that has and continues to have a relevance to such individual actors involved in technology transfer such as scientists, R&D specialists, CEOs, policy makers etc. These macro perspectives have also focused on technology transfer mechanisms (formal and informal) and methods (see Amesse and Cohendet 2001; Bradley et al. 2013; Cutler 1989; Grimpe and Fier 2010; Gilsing et al. 2011; Lee and Win 2004; Molas-Gallart 1997). Moreover, this macro perspective has also focused on the efectiveness of policy instruments designed to support efective technology transfer at national or regional levels or targeted at specifc industry sectors (Contractor and Sagaf-Nejad 1981; Rothwell and Dodgson 1992; Worrell et al. 2001).

A particular macro focus of empirical studies have centred on the Bayh–Dole Act 1980 that have evaluated the impact of this US legislation on shaping and driving technology transfer from universities to industry (Grimaldi et al. 2011; Kenney and Patton 2009; Mowery 2005, 2011; Mowery et al. 2001 Mowery and Sampat 2004; Nelson 2001). Other policy and context orientated studies have empirically investigated the impact of other policy initiatives in the US and other contexts such as European countries (see Adams and Link 2017; Becher and Kuhlmann 2012; Breschi et al. 2007; Cunningham and Link 2015, 2016; Geuna and Rossi 2011; Haeussler and Colyvas 2011; Hall et al. 2001; Hall and Link 2015; Hülsbeck et al. 2013; Link and Scott 2013; Jacob et al. 2003).

Studies have focused at the meso level with a particular focus on supporting institutions. Technology transfer ofces have been a particular focus of empirical studies at both the meso and micro levels (see Algieri et al. 2013; Chapple et al. 2005; Geoghegan et al. 2015; Secundo et al. 2017; Siegel et al. 2003; O’Kane et al. 2015). The role incubators, accelerators and graduate entrepreneurship has become a growing area of focus among researchers (see Birch et al. 2017; Kolympiris and Klein 2017; Larsson et al. 2017; Lindholm Dahlstrand and Politis 2013; Mian 1996; McAdam et al. 2006; Redondo et al. 2017; Wright et al. 2017). Moreover emerging growing body of research on science parks have taken multi-level perspectives of technology transfer (see Hobbs et al. 2017).

Micro perspectives of technology transfer have focused on a variety of themes and are growing within the feld using diferent discipline perspectives (see Albats et al. 2017; Cusumano and Elenkov 1994). Such studies have focused on for example the use of technology transfer ofces (Muscio 2010), cultural diferences (Lin and Berg 2001); institutional dimensions of R&D collaborations (Bjerregaard 2010), motivations (Cunningham et al. 2016a; D’este and Perkmann 2011; Hayter 2017), communications (Barnes et al. 2002; Plewa et al. 2013), time allocations (Ponomariov and Boardman 2008) and barriers to university collaboration (Cunningham et al. 2014; Hall et al. 2001; O’Reilly and Cunningham 2017; O’Kane et al. 2017). Over the last decade there have been a growing micro level focus on better understanding technology transfer through the experiences of individual actors involved in the technology transfer process such as academic entrepreneurs (Bercovitz and Feldman 2008; Mosey and Wright 2007; Miller et al. 2017) scientists (Link et al. 2007) star scientists (Baba et al. 2009; Meyer 2006), principal investigators (Cunningham et al. 2016a; Cunningham et al. 2017a; Cunningham et al. 2018; Del Giudice et al. 2017; Menter 2016), technology entrepreneurs and graduate students (see Evers et al. 2014; Guerrero et al. 2018; Hayter et al. 2017; RezaeiZadeh et al. 2017; Watson and McGowan 2017; Watson et al. 2018).

Diferent conceptual and theoretical perspectives have emerged that have embraced, encompassed and shaped perspectives with respect technology transfer in a broader economic and social context that attempts to incorporate the multiple layers of macro, meso and micro perspectives. These have shaped the ways researchers situate, analyze and interpret their data in order to contribute to the growing body of knowledge and evidence base of technology transfer. Perspectives such as the triple and quadruple helix (see Carayannis et al. 2018; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorf 2000; McAdam and Debackere 2018; Miller et al. 2018); entrepreneurial ecosystems (Audretsch and Belitski 2017; Pitelis 2012; Spigel 2017), clusters (Rocha 2004; Spigel and Harrison 2017), public sector entrepreneurship (Leyden and Link 2015; Leyden 2016) provide competing and complimentary perspectives that attempt to provide a multi-layer perspective that can enable both a synthesis and an interrogation of technology transfer ranging from macro to the micro level.