The focus of this article is on the impact of cultural influences in academic knowledge transfer (KT). This aspect of the KT process was studied at Dutch and German technical universities. The analysis shows that professional values and identities play an important role in academic KT. Administrators in university KT offices were found to be influenced by values such as efficiency and profitability, like their counterparts in the private industry. At the same time, the KT personnel in both countries shared traditional academic values with the academic staff. With this ability to understand the interests of both the private sector and the academics, KT personnel at universities have taken on a bridging role in mediating between the non-profit interests of academia and the profit interest of external parties. It is argued that, due to the increasingly complex legal and administrative processes involved in transferring knowledge to external partners, KT managers are adapting to a functional niche in modern academic organizations by fulfilling this important ‘bridging role’.
AghionP.DewatripontM.SteinJeremy C. (2005), Academic Freedom, Private-Sector Focus, and the Process of Innovation, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
2.
BecherT. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories, Open University Press, Berkeley, CA.
3.
van den BergP.T.WilderomC. (2004), ‘Defining, measuring and comparing organizational cultures’, Applied Psychology, Vol 53, No 4, pp 570–580.
4.
BleijerveldJ.R. (2003), Inzicht en Overzicht- Over de maakbaarheid van de universitaire organisatie, Vossiuspers UvA, Amsterdam.
5.
BozemanB. (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public theory: A review of research and theory’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 627–655.
6.
BranteT. (1990), ‘Professional types as a strategy of analysis’, in BurrageM.TorstendahlR., eds, Professions in Theory and History: Rethinking the Study of Professions, Sage, London.
7.
BreschiS.LissoniF.MontobbioF. (2005), ‘The scientific productivity of academic inventors', paper for the final conference of the research project PRIN 2003, ‘Dynamic capabilities, firm organization and local systems of production’, University of Bologna, Bologna.
8.
Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2001), Zur Einführung der Neuheitsschonfrist im Patentrecht – ein USA-Deutschland-Vergleich bezogen auf den Hochschulbereich. Schlussbericht, BMBF, Bonn.
9.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2004), Hochschulrahmengesetz Deutschland, BMBF, Bonn.
10.
ClarkB.R. (1989), ‘The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds’, Educational Researcher, Vol 18, No 5, pp 4–8.
11.
ClarkB.R. (1999), ‘Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation’, Higher Education, Vol 38, No 3.
12.
DosiG. (1982), ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change’, Research Policy, Vol 11, No 3, pp 147–162.
13.
DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergG.SoeteL. (1988), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London.
14.
EC (2003), Die Rolle der Universitäten im Europa des Wissens, European Commission.
15.
EndersJ. (1999), ‘Crisis? What crisis? The academic professions in the “knowledge” society’, Higher Education, Vol 38, pp 71–81.
16.
EndersJ. (2001), ‘Between state control and academic capitalism: A comparative perspective on academic staff in Europe’, in EndersJ., ed, Academic Staff in Europe: Changing Contexts and Conditions, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, and London, pp 1–24.
17.
EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 823–833.
18.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 109–123.
19.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL., eds (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations, Pinter, London.
20.
EU (2004), Looking Beyond Tomorrow – Scientific Research in the European Union, Looking Beyond Tomorrow – Scientific Research in the European Union, Directorate-General for Press and Communication, European Commission.
21.
MoutinhoFigueiro P.S.FontesM.GodinhoM.M. (2007), ‘Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists' patenting in Portuguese public research organisations’, Scientometrics, Vol 70, No 2, pp 355–377.
22.
SachsenFreistaat (1999), Gesetz über die Hochschulen im Freistaat Sachsen (Saechsisches Hochschulgesetz), Freistaat Sachsen, www.sachsen.de.
23.
GeunaA.NestaL. (2006), ‘University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 790–807.
24.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London.
25.
HellmannT. (2007), ‘The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol 63, No 4, pp 624–647.
26.
HookS. (1969), Academic Capitalism, Cowles, New York.
27.
JacobsonN.ButterhillD.GoeringP. (2004), Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers' Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities, Sage, London.
28.
JaffeeD. (2001), Organization Theory: Tension and Change, McGraw-Hill, London.
29.
JoergensB.ShinnT., eds (2001), ‘The “Triple Helix” and “New Production of Knowledge” as socio-cognitive fields’, in Instrumentation Between Science, State and Industry, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
30.
Jones-EvansD.KlofstenM.AnderssonE.PandyaD. (1999), ‘Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries’, R&D Management, Vol 29, No 1, pp 47–56.
31.
JongbloedB.SalernoC. (2003), De bekostiging van het universitaire onderwijs en onderzoek in Nederland: Modellen, Thema's en Trends. Center for Higher Education Policies Studies, Universiteit Twente, Enschede.
32.
KrückenG. (2003a), ‘Mission impossible? Institutional barriers to the diffusion of the “third academic mission” at German universities’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 25, Nos 1/2, pp 18–33.
33.
KrückenG. (2003b), ‘Learning the “New, New Thing”: On the role of path dependency in university structures’, Higher Education, Vol 46, pp 315–339.
34.
BerlinLand (2005a), Gesetz über die Hochschulen im Land Berlin – Berliner Hochschulgesetz, Land Berlin, www.berlin.de.
35.
BerlinLand (2005b), Vertrag gemäß Artikel II des Haushaltsstrukturgesetzes 1997 in der Fassung des Art. III § 2 des Haushaltsentlastungsgesetzes 2002 zwischen dem Land Berlin und der Technischen Universität Berlin, www.berlin.de.
36.
MeyerM.du PlessisM.TukevaT.UtechtJ.T. (2005), ‘Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems’, Scientometrics, Vol 63, No 1, pp 45–161.
37.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen (2004), Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoeksplan (HOOP), Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoeksplan (HOOP), Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
38.
NelsonR.R. (1995), ‘Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 33, pp 48–90.
39.
NelsonR.RosenbergN. (1993), ‘Technical innovation and national systems’, in NelsonR., ed, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press, New York.
40.
NelsonR.WinterS. (1974), ‘Neoclassical vs evolutionary theories of economic growth: Critique and prospectus’, Economic Journal, Vol 84, No 336, pp 886–905.
41.
NixonJ. (1996), ‘Professional identity and the restructuring of higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 21, No 1, pp 5–16.
ReedM.I. (1992), The Sociology of Organizations – Themes, Perspectives and Prospects, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
44.
RijnvosC.J. (1992), Universitaire Organisatie – Rede ter gelegenheid van het academisch jaar 1992–1993, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam.
45.
RipA.van der MeulenBarend J.R. (1996), ‘The post-modern research system’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 23, No 6, pp 343–352.
46.
RosenbergN.NelsonR. (1994), ‘American universities and technical advance in industry’, Research Policy, Vol 23, pp 323–348.
47.
ScheinEdgar H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
48.
SchimankU.WinnesM. (2000), ‘European university systems – beyond Humboldt? The relationship between teaching and research in European university systems’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 27, No 6, pp 397–408.
49.
SchmochU.LichtG.ReinhardM. (2000), Wissens-und Technologietransfer in Deutschland, Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart.
50.
ScottW.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, London.
51.
SegersJ. (1999), Methoden voor de maatschappijwetenschappen. Van Gorcum, Assen.
52.
SiegelD.S.WaldmanD.LinkA. (2003), ‘Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 27–48.
53.
SilvermanD. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data – Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, Sage, London.
54.
SimonH.A. (1976), Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, The Free Press, New York.
55.
SlaughterS.LeslieL. (1997), Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
56.
TordoirP. (1984), De relaties tussen technologische innovatie, informatie en agglomeratie. Een theoretische beschouwing. Economisch-Geografisch Instituut, Amsterdam.
57.
TU Berlin (2004), Rechenschaftsbericht 2001–2003, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin.
58.
TU Delft (2005), Wegen naar Innovatie – InstellingsplanTU Delft 2005–2008, Universiteit van Delft, Delft.
59.
VälimaaJ. (1998), ‘Culture and identity in higher education research’, Higher Education, Vol 36, pp 119–138.
60.
Van LooyB.CalleaertJ.DebackereK. (2006), ‘Publication and behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 596–608.
61.
WalterA. (2003), Technologietransfer zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft – Voraussetzungen für den Erfolg, Deutscher Universitätsverlag/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden.
62.
WeickK.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
63.
WoodF. (1992), ‘Commercialisation of university research in Australia’, Comparative Education, Vol 28, No 3, p 293.
64.
YlijokiO.-I. (2003), ‘Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research’, Higher Education, Vol 45, pp 307–335.
