Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations
Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university-industry collaborations
Igors Skute 0
Kasia Zalewska-Kurek 0
Isabella Hatak 0
Petra de Weerd-Nederhof 0
JEL Classification M 0
0 Netherlands Institute for Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship, University of Twente , P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede , The Netherlands
The substantial acknowledgement of university-industry (U-I) collaborations as promotor of economic progress, innovativeness and competitiveness fostered a continuous research engagement. At the same time, the U-I literature experienced a notable increase in the past decade, transforming into a multi-faceted and ambiguous research field, characterised by highly complex interlinks. The recent transformation hinders a comprehensive understanding of the latest developments in research directions and their clear delineation. Therefore, the purpose of this bibliometric literature review is to examine the evolution of the field and identify the primary emerging patterns. This paper employs co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling techniques to analyse the U-I publications dataset. The findings indicate that the U-I collaborations research can be systematically clustered, resulting in an interconnected ecosystem consisting of three levels: individual, organisational and institutional, respectively. Thus, this review presents the immense contribution that the analysis of U-I collaborations makes to various research streams. Building on these findings and employing qualitative content analysis on the clustered publications, the paper develops a research agenda that encourages future investigations of previously overlooked features of U-I collaborations in general, and their role across levels of analysis, contexts and stages of the collaboration process in particular.
University-industry; Bibliometrics; Co-citation analysis; Bibliographic coupling; Academic entrepreneurship; Technology transfer; Knowledge transfer
In recent years, university–industry (U–I) collaborations have garnered substantial interest
as a source for knowledge production and new technological advancements, fostering the
economic and innovative competitiveness of regions
(Bishop et al. 2011; D’Este et al.
2013; Rasmussen and Wright 2015)
. This interest largely proceeds from three sets of
arguments. The first argument relates to quantity—industrial partners increasingly engage
in collaborative activities with academic institutions to source the cutting edge R&D
insights and leverage their research and product development capabilities
(Perkmann et al.
. At the same time, becoming more ambidextrous, universities actively engage in the
commercialisation of research results and technological advancements after research
(D’Este and Perkmann 2011; Perkmann et al. 2013; Villani et al. 2017)
related to quality, both university and industry collaboration partners encounter challenges
in successfully managing their inter-organisational innovation processes and the associated
relational and institutional dependencies
(Bozeman et al. 2013; Van Looy et al. 2011;
Wirsich et al. 2016)
. Third, policy makers increasingly hail U–I collaborations as a tool to
address economic and societal challenges by novel means
(Ponds et al. 2010; Lehmann and
Thus, understanding the mechanisms that foster and hinder U–I collaborations has also
become a crucial challenge for scholars
(D’Este et al. 2013; Maietta 2015; Rasmussen and
. Broadly, U–I collaborations refer to partnerships between one or several
academic or research institutions and one or several firms operating in industrial markets
focused on collaborative R&D activities
(Bozeman et al. 2013; Perkmann and Walsh 2007;
. The importance of the research area is evidenced by the fast-growing
number of scholarly publications addressing the following: characteristics and motives of
individuals engaged in the commercialisation of research, both from academia and
industry, and their effects; characteristics and motives of the organisations involved in
collaborative R&D activities, and their effects; and characteristics and developments of
regional policy measures targeted to foster U–I collaborations
(Carayannis and Campbell
2012; Laursen et al. 2011; Link 2015; Perkmann et al. 2013)
. Prior research highlights a
broad variety of elements shaping the U–I collaboration process and identifies several
predictors of the scientific and economic impact of joint research activities.
Consequently, the current state of knowledge, on the one hand, can be seen as relatively
fragmented by following distinct directions of fundamental research perspectives.
Conversely, the scope of the U–I collaborations literature is continuously extended, evidenced
by increasing research on complex interconnections among diverse elements of U–I
. Thus, the current body of U–I knowledge has recently been
transformed into a complex, multi-faceted field with many interlinkages that exacerbate a
far-reaching and robust interpretation of findings due to the application of different
theoretical perspectives and models
(Perkmann et al. 2013; Petruzzelli 2011; Teixeira and
. Specifically, U–I research appears to not coherently establish connections
between previously adopted theoretical understandings and empirical models, hindering
the visibility of clear directions for coherent future research. Therefore, U–I researchers
run the risk of duplicating empirical findings while leaving knowledge gaps in other areas
(Delgado Garc´ıa et al. 2015; Gerbin and Drnovsek 2016)
. Consequently, a coherent
analysis of the evolution of the U–I collaboration research and a reflection against current
thematic areas and emerging patterns are needed
(Diez-Vial and Montoro-Sanchez 2017;
Minguillo et al. 2015; Teixeira and Mota 2012)
To address the challenges indicated above, we conduct a quantitative bibliometric
analysis of 435 peer-reviewed articles, using co-citation analysis and bibliographic
coupling techniques. Up to now, quantitative review approaches in the context of U–I studies
are limited, especially when it comes to capturing the field’s latest developments
resolving this gap, see e.g., Teixeira and Mota 2012; Meyer et al. 2014; Davey et al. 2016)
This limitation is surprising, as narrative reviews can include sampling, measurement,
stochastic, and external validity issues and generally do not allow to quantify the
relationships (Schmidt and Hunter 2004). Furthermore, narrative reviews frequently
incorporate various normative and cognitive biases of the researcher
(Rosenbusch et al. 2011)
In turn, by employing a quantitative approach to our literature analysis, we unravel the
scientific roots of the U–I research and identify current thematic areas and emerging
patterns in the field. Additionally, by conducting a qualitative content analysis, based on
the identified articles, we generate nuanced insights into relevant future research directions.
The results of the co-citation analysis imply that the U–I research field is based on four
thematic clusters focused on the following: (1) the distance perspective and the impact of
partner complementarity, (2) the antecedents and consequences of academic
entrepreneurship, (3) the ecosystem perspective regarding the governance mechanisms and
policy developments and (4) the efficiency of the available interaction channels and
knowledge transfer. In turn, the results of bibliographic coupling suggest six current and
emerging thematic clusters. While three themes are overlapping with the findings of the
cocitation analysis, namely the ecosystem perspective (cluster 1), academic entrepreneurship
perspective (cluster 3), and distance perspective (cluster 4), we uncovered three additional
inter-related themes: the social relations perspective (cluster 2) addressing the relationship
development among individuals and firms, interaction process and knowledge transfer
perspective outlining the dynamics and key elements of the U–I collaborations, and policy
implications perspective (cluster 6) highlighting the impact of regional policy
This paper makes the following contributions: First, this study uncovers the evolution of
the U–I collaboration concept by comparing its foundations with current thematic areas
and emerging patterns. This paper consolidates the insights generated by U–I researchers in
the past years, thus providing a comprehensive reflection of the research field. Second, by
performing a content analysis of identified thematic areas, this study advances a
multilayered and inter-connected research agenda encouraging future investigations of
previously understudied features and mechanisms of U–I collaborations on individual,
organisational and institutional levels in general, and their role in various contexts and stages of
the collaboration process in particular.
The article is structured as follows. In the following section, we explain the research
design and methods employed. Then, the main results of the co-citation analysis and
bibliographic coupling are presented. Furthermore, we discuss the main implications for
academics and policy makers, while defining the emerging patterns in the field and
presenting future research directions. Finally, limitations of this study are discussed.
2 Research design
The articles for this review were retrieved from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
database. This database is recognised to cover a broad range of relevant journals and
peerreviewed articles of high quality. While we acknowledge the availability of various other
databases, we act in accordance with the methodological approach of previous research
(see e.g., Meyer et al. 2014)
; in addition, as we focus mainly on investigating patterns of
indicators, this restriction can be accepted. We use ‘university industry’ as the keyword for
searching titles, abstracts and/or keywords while allowing for variations of term spelling
(e.g., ‘university–industry’, ‘university/industry’ etc.). This keyword combination allows to
grasp the U–I literature scope at a broad level and minimises the risk of including false
positive items that do not compliment the actual thematic literature, potentially leading to
misleading interpretations of the state of knowledge
(Kova´cs et al. 2015)
. We restricted the
search to document type—that is, articles—in the Web of Science database and to the
literature published in the period of 2011–2016 (incl.) to complement previous research
and to study the latest and emerging developments in the field. This search process resulted
in a final sample of 435 articles in total, referring to 3102 citations and 14,705 references.
To avoid false positive items in the dataset, all articles that formed a corpus for
bibliographic coupling and that provided the basis for a set of references used for co-citation
analysis were checked for the inclusion of the ‘university industry’ keyword or its variation
in title, abstract and/or keywords.
To analyse publication scientific mapping patterns and to evaluate the similarity of U–I
literature themes, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling techniques were applied
(Boyack and Klavans 2010; Kessler 1963; Small 1973)
. Bibliographic coupling focuses on
matching articles in the dataset based on shared references. In turn, co-citation analysis
matches articles in the dataset that are jointly cited by another article. Due to its nature,
cocitation analysis is based on cited articles and therefore is suited for examining the
development of the literature from its roots, while bibliographic coupling is based on citing
articles and hence is more applicable to identify the current state of the literature and the
(see e.g., Boyack and Klavans 2010; Meyer et al. 2014; Kova´cs et al.
Thematic clusters were developed and visualised based on normalised relatedness
measures. An association strength measure was chosen as appropriate for normalising
cooccurrence data, in accordance with the methodological approach adopted by previous
(Kova´cs et al. 2015; van Eck and Waltman 2009; Waltman et al. 2010)
. A detailed
methodological overview including calculations of the association strength measure and
comparison to other well-known measures is provided in Van Eck and Waltman (2009) and
Waltman et al. (2010). Clustered bibliometric networks were constructed by adopting the
visualisation of similarities (VOS) approach using an optimised algorithm of VOSviewer
(van Eck and Waltman 2007, 2010)
Additionally, qualitative content analysis of the publications based on the clustering
results was used. The identified clusters were labelled accordingly by performing the
term frequency count and analysing the content of titles, abstracts and keywords of the
clustered publications. Subsequently, the 20 most cited articles with the highest link
strength in each cluster were qualitatively analysed by the authors to reveal future
research suggestions by manually scanning and coding relevant paragraphs of the full
text publications using Atlas.ti software. To ensure not only breadth, but also depth of
future research opportunities, the discussion about future research avenues was enriched
with additional literature.
3.1 Co-citation analysis results
The results of co-citation analysis are illustrated in Fig. 1. The visualised bibliometric
network represents four interconnected clusters with unique labels that are based on the
cited references from the initial dataset of 435 publications. The original dataset consisting
of 435 articles published in the period of 2011–2016 refers to 14,705 references that are
standardised to the same format for further analysis. However, in the co-citation analysis,
we include publications with at least ten citations to ensure an analysis of an essential
literature, avoiding the potential risk of overly complicating the interpretation
et al. 2015)
. This restriction leads to 245 references meeting the threshold. In accordance
with the goal to examine the evolution of the U–I research field and the corpus of
references used for co-citation analysis, we also include the cited literature published before
Each scientific publication depicted in the visualised bibliometric network represents a
unique cited reference that is clustered based on the likelihood to be cited in combination
with other items. Items that are assigned to the same cluster share a higher probability to be
cited together by another publication. Colours indicate the clusters and articles belonging
to them. Moreover, a specific weight is assigned to each item based on a total link strength
of the publication and the number of citations it has received. For a better overview,
publications with higher total link strength are visualised in a larger size
(van Eck and
Based on the results of the co-citation analysis, we retrieved the information necessary
to conduct an additional examination of the journals interested in publishing U–I research
and the keywords associated with the analysed publications. The results show that the three
leading peer-reviewed journals (Fig. 2) that published the highest number of contributions
to the U–I literature (period of 2011–2016) are Research Policy (95 publications), followed
by the Journal of Technology Transfer (16 publications) and Management Science (9
publications). Moreover, we measured the term frequency of keywords assigned to the
journals to examine the most important keywords in the cited references of the initial U–I
literature dataset (Fig. 3).
Based on the visualisation of similarities (VOS) approach and the co-citation analysis
technique, the current body of U–I research was divided into four thematic clusters and
labelled based on the authors’ independent content analysis. In addition, it needs to be
acknowledged that—while the authors’ attempted to define clusters in a manner that would
reflect the entire scope of the U–I literature—the foci of the articles included in the
analyses are of a broad variety; therefore, certain elements cannot be fully elaborated on.
The Journal of Technology Transfer
Industrial and Corporate Change
American Economic Review
Economics of Innovation and New Technology
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Journal of Business Venturing
American Journal of Sociology
Administrative Science Quarterly
Academy of Management Review
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
International Journal of Management Reviews
International Journal of Industrial Organization
Technology Transfer (Offices)
University Industry (cooperation, collaboration, linkages,…
Research & Development (R&D)
Bayh Dole (Act)
Clustering & Networking
Start Up/Spin Off
Resource Based View (RBV)
3.1.1 Cluster 1: Distance and partner complementarity perspective
Research belonging to this cluster is focused on understanding the impact of U–I partner
distance and partner complementarity on their potential to foster innovation and regional
economic development by means of joint scientific and technological advancements.
Specifically, this cluster explores the role of partner capabilities critical to efficiently
acquire, assimilate, transform and effectively exploit knowledge and resources shared and
generated within U–I and other R&D collaborations
(Cohen and Levinthal 1989; Zahra and
. A pivotal factor determining the likelihood to successfully exploit and
translate the partner complementary potential into innovative products, services or
processes is the level of absorptive capacity possessed by the actors
(Cohen and Levinthal
1990; Tether and Tajar 2008)
. Prior research has devoted major resources to understanding
the dimensions of absorptive capacity and the dynamics of research cooperation among
diverse research partners
(Santoro and Chakrabarti 2002)
. Additionally, this cluster
explores the role of partner proximity for innovation outcomes
(Jaffe 1989; Jaffe et al.
1993; Salter and Martin 2001)
. For example, seminal work focused on geographical
closeness between the partners and regional knowledge spillovers as a determinant of
patent citations and innovation performance
(Jaffe et al. 1993; Anselin et al. 1997)
research examined additional types of partner proximity, such as partner cognitive
distance, and related concepts, such as social capital and networking capabilities
Tajar 2008; Ponds et al. 2010)
. Thus, this cluster assembles the articles that investigate the
relationship between partner (a) distance and degree of complementarity and (b) their
capability to increase the quality of interactions, patent generation and regional economic
development. Research articles also extend to other directions, for example, providing a
critical outlook on the time lag between research activities and
industrialisation/commercialisation of joint technological advancements
(Fleming and Sorenson 2004;
3.1.2 Cluster 2: Academic entrepreneurship perspective
This cluster centres on the analysis of university evolution from traditionally research- and
education-oriented institutions towards the development of a multi-faceted system of
academic entrepreneurship. Following the Bayh–Dole Act, academic entrepreneurship has
received increasing attention from scholars and practitioners
(Mowery et al. 2001)
Correspondingly, research that belongs to this cluster is focused on understanding how, and
with what effects opportunities to engage in academic entrepreneurship are discovered,
evaluated and exploited, and by whom. The first sub-stream of this cluster addresses the
role of characteristics of individual researchers and their universities for engaging in
entrepreneurial activities, such as quality and size of the faculty, previous experiences,
commercial and research orientation, and funding and commercial capabilities of the
researchers and their universities
(Mansfield 1995; Etzkowitz 2003a; O’Shea et al. 2005;
Bercovitz and Feldman 2008)
. A related topic of this sub-stream investigates incentives
and barriers affecting the engagement of researchers and universities in entrepreneurial
(Siegel et al. 2003)
The second sub-stream addresses the role of technology transfer office (TTO) as a
mechanism to successfully commercialise research results, and their related role in
interaction channels as a facilitator of knowledge and technology transfer between the U–I
(Bozeman 2000; Thursby and Thursby 2002)
. Moreover, research
articles of this cluster explored which combinations of these factors and mechanisms
ensure an increase of the academic entrepreneurship output by means of academic
spinoffs, patents and other types of research licensing
(Lockett and Wright 2005; Zucker and
. Finally, institutional and policy settings also have been considered as
relevant contingencies within academic entrepreneurship
(Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Van
Looy et al. 2004; Debackere and Veugelers 2005)
3.1.3 Cluster 3: Ecosystem perspective
With the increasing recognition of U–I collaborations as a catalyst for regional and national
economic development, the interaction between university, industry and government has
attracted notable interest in research
(Park et al. 2005)
. This cluster addresses the roles of
the actors embedded in this ecosystem and the sub-dynamics of economic exchange,
scientific and technological innovation, and institutional control within the Triple Helix
(Leydesdorff and Fritsch 2006)
. Within the ecosystem perspective, by developing
contractual agreements with industry partners to conduct research in particular areas and
exploit the economic potential, university representatives exercise some of the functions of
research administrators in private business
. In turn, in certain
circumstances, the government acts as a public entrepreneur and venture capitalist in addition to
its traditional regulatory activities; therefore, the research in this cluster is focused on
understanding the hybridisation and interconnections among the Triple Helix actors, as
well as the knowledge producers and users
. Additionally, publications
in this cluster analyse the evolution of the university as a facilitator of knowledge
production that follows government-supported initiatives designed together with industry to
facilitate the development of an ecosystem for new firm formation and regional growth
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Etzkowitz and Klofsten 2005)
. Similarly, this cluster
addresses the regional and national policy developments supporting the U–I interactions.
An important issue remains regarding understanding differences in Triple Helix
configurations across different sectors (e.g., mid-tech and high-tech) and in different regions with
diverse institutional characteristics
(Lengyel and Leydesdorff 2011; Leydesdorff and
Fritsch 2006; Leydesdorff and Sun 2009)
3.1.4 Cluster 4: Interaction channels perspective
Research belonging to this cluster focuses on the variety of interaction channels between
the involved parties of U–I partnerships and the associated determinants. The central
element of this cluster is the identification and characterisation of distinct interaction
channels and knowledge transfer mechanisms, ranging from scientific publications and
published reports, public conferences and meetings, licencing and patenting and to contract
research and consultancy
(Cohen et al. 2002; Wright et al. 2008)
. In addition to identifying
types of interaction channels and knowledge transfer mechanisms, research belonging to
this cluster provides an in-depth analysis of the incentives and the associated determinants
regarding the choice towards a specific channel (Geuna and Muscio 2009).
Bodas Freitas (2008
) suggest that the characteristics of the transferred knowledge, the
characteristics of researchers involved, and the environment in which knowledge is
produced and exploited determine the selection of a specific interaction channel.
Subsequently, a related sub-stream examines the outcomes associated with the implementation of
distinct interaction channels, such as the interaction quality and the associated risks and
benefits within U–I partnerships
(Arza 2010; Dutre´nit et al. 2010)
. Nevertheless, it remains
an important challenge to nuance the effects of distinct interaction channels by considering
short versus long-term goals, as well as acknowledge the role of the context by exploring
outcomes across different sectors and collaborative projects with varying intensity of
interaction (Schartinger et al. 2002). An interesting sub-stream of research explores
alternative forms of interaction channels by means of attracting talent to the local economy
and collaborating with local industry by offering formal and informal technical support
(Bramwell and Wolfe 2008)
. Finally, a less investigated but promising research direction
addresses the antecedents and consequences of collaborative portfolio management in
terms of the scope of activities and the types of firms with which they interact
(Wright et al.
Additionally, we summarised the key statistical details of the identified clusters
(Table 1). The statistical comparison indicates different evolution patterns of the identified
thematic clusters and their relative importance for researchers. While the distance and
partner complementarity perspective (Cluster 1) holds the most dominant position in terms
of the total number of publications and the number of citations, other clusters have varied
impacts. The academic entrepreneurship perspective (Cluster 2) has a similar number of
publications to the distance and partner complementarity perspective; nevertheless, the
total and average numbers of citations indicate that it covers a smaller number of seminal
works that would shape the U–I research field. However, compared to the ecosystem
(Cluster 3) and the interaction channels clusters (Cluster 4), the academic entrepreneurship
perspective (Cluster 2) appears to possess a slightly higher impact, as it is also the second
most recent cluster (13.81 years avg. existence). Simultaneously, the interactive channels
perspective (Cluster 4) is the youngest cluster in terms of existence in years of
publications, on average (9.91), suggesting a notable development of the interaction channels
Three most cited
Mowery et al.
Siegel et al.
Henderson et al.
Cohen et al.
Klevorick et al.
D’Este and Patel
research in the past decade. Both the research on distance and partner complementarity
(Cluster 1) and ecosystem perspectives (Cluster 3) share a long history of evolution,
significantly shaping the U–I research development patterns and providing a solid
foundation for current and future advancements.
3.2 Bibliographic coupling results
The results of bibliographic coupling that outline the current research perspectives in the
U–I research field are illustrated in Fig. 4. Similar methodological steps are applied to the
interpretation of bibliographic coupling results. Nevertheless, the implemented differences
should be clearly outlined. We apply no restrictions concerning the number of citations to
grasp the entire dataset with research articles published from 2011 to 2016. As noted
previously, this choice has been made to complement the previous research and develop
new insights based on previous reviews. From a total sample of 435 articles included in the
analysis, 402 articles were clustered and included in the illustrated bibliographic network.
Excluded articles represent a sample of publications with no shared references with other
articles in the dataset and therefore cannot be connected. In addition, two clusters were
composed of 3 and 2 articles, respectively; due to the low applicability, these were
excluded from further analysis. Thus, the final sample of analysis consists of 397 clustered
Based also on the bibliographic coupling results, we retrieved the corresponding
information enabling an analysis of the journals publishing the relevant literature and the
keywords that are assigned to these publications. Figure 5 represents the journals
publishing most research on U–I collaborations, based on the number of scientific publications
per journal in the period of 2011–2016. The three leading journals are Research Policy (42
publications), followed by Journal of Technology Transfer (39 publications) and
Scientometrics (32 publications). A term frequency analysis was performed revealing the most
occurring keywords assigned to the publications (Fig. 6).
Applying the visualisation of similarities (VOS) approach and the bibliographic
coupling technique, the existing research was divided into six thematic clusters and labelled
based on the authors’ independent content analysis.
3.2.1 Cluster 1: Ecosystem perspective
A central tenet of this cluster is the interplay between university, industry and government
(i.e., Triple Helix). Largely, articles focus on explaining the impact of these three elements
on joint collaborative activities on regional and national levels, including the economic and
societal impact, as well as on innovation outcomes. In addition, articles belonging to this
cluster also examine the dynamics of Triple Helix infrastructure
(Kwon et al. 2012; Lei
et al. 2012)
. In the context of U–I collaborations, the ecosystem perspective addresses the
university policy developments stimulating entrepreneurship-based economic development
Science and Public Policy
International Journal of Engineering Education
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
promoted by regional authorities (Astebro et al. 2012). In accordance with this research
thread, several articles focus on understanding the exploitation possibilities of the
cogenerated knowledge to bootstrap the technology of regional innovation systems
(Leydesdorff and Deakin 2011)
. Furthermore, previous research addressed the need to develop
new performance indicators to estimate the impact of U–I collaborations on the regional
level, also considering the development of the e-government domain
(Khan and Park 2013;
Meyer et al. 2014)
3.2.2 Cluster 2: Social relations perspective
The largest cluster in terms of included articles focuses on the social aspect of U–I
collaborations and knowledge transfer. The social relations perspective cluster corresponds
to the social component of the interaction channels cluster (as part of co-citation analysis
results), focusing on the effectiveness of interaction and communication among the
partners. Here, articles centre around factors that facilitate and optimise sustainable
relationships between actors, incentives for collaboration, and networking activities that foster
reliable knowledge and technology transfer. In fact, research focuses not only on
determining the relational success factors (e.g., communication, trust, understanding
individuals) but also on the necessity to leverage the technical and networking competences
(Comacchio et al. 2012; Plewa et al. 2013a)
. Correspondingly, research addresses the
University Industry (cooperation, collaboration, linkages,…
Technology Transfer (Offices)
Research & Development
Bayh Dole (Act)
importance of developing an understanding of differences in these relational success
factors across various cognitive, normative and regulative contexts
(Hemmert et al. 2014)
Similarly, the motives of the collaboration (e.g., more technical or more scientific) need to
be considered in the process of researching into relational aspects of U–I collaborations
(Soh and Subramanian 2014)
. Therefore, a key focus of this research direction is targeted
to identify the best practices of U–I collaboration management
3.2.3 Cluster 3: Academic entrepreneurship perspective
This cluster largely is composed of articles capturing the interface of knowledge and
technology transfer by means of academic spin-offs and patents. Here, research focuses on
characteristics of entrepreneurial universities and their motivations stimulating academics
to engage in inter-organisational R&D projects. On a broader level, the academic
entrepreneurship perspective analyses the interplay of different actors embedded in the
academic entrepreneurship ecosystem and the associated outcomes. Consequently, this
cluster investigates different types of interaction channels, including the human capital
movement, for knowledge and technology transfer and the associated outcomes at the
(Perkmann et al. 2013; Teixeira and Mota 2012)
understanding the antecedents and consequences of academic entrepreneurship continues to
attract research interest. A prime example of research belonging to this cluster is conducted
by D’Este and Perkmann (2011), examining the channels of knowledge transfer based on
the research-related or commercialisation motives of scientists. Similarly, the academic
entrepreneurship research is focused on evaluating the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic
incentives for engaging in U–I collaborations taking account of the researchers’ social
(Lam 2011; Tartari et al. 2014)
. A related stream of literature comprising this
cluster addresses the characteristics of the entrepreneurial universities and factors that
foster and hinder entrepreneurial activities of academic institutions (Maietta 2015).
3.2.4 Cluster 4: Distance perspective
This cluster focuses on understanding the structure of U–I collaborations. Articles explore
the impact of spatial, social, institutional and cognitive proximities on the development and
innovation performance of U–I collaborations, comparing both regional and (inter)national
levels. A major part of this research direction analyses the impact of spatial proximity not
only on the decisions to choose certain partners for collaborative R&D activities but also
on the new firm location choices in a proximity of related academic institutions
et al. 2011a, b)
. In accordance with this research stream, the impact of spatial proximity on
the innovation and technology creation, as well as the regional developments, is a prime
(D’Este et al. 2013)
. However, the empirical studies of partner proximity studies
report mixed results, which can be attributed to the interlinkages between different types of
partner proximities, in addition to other partner technological and relation attributes
(Muscio and Pozzali 2013; Petruzzelli 2011)
. Therefore, partner proximity is a
multifaceted cluster exploring the interplay of partner proximities in conjunction with the
partner absorptive capacity and exploitative/explorative capabilities (Bishop et al. 2011).
3.2.5 Cluster 5: Interaction process and knowledge transfer perspective
This cluster takes a dynamic view of U–I collaborations, identifying and exploring success
factors and barriers of the collaboration process, both from academic and industrial
perspectives. Specifically, the interaction process and knowledge transfer perspective
explores different types of U–I interaction channels and their effectiveness in terms of
achieving short-term or long-term goals
(De Fuentes and Dutrenit 2012)
organisational and cultural barriers that may impede the interaction process are presented
in different configurations
(Gilsing et al. 2011; Kyoung-Joo 2011)
. The U–I interactions
and associated outcomes in the form of knowledge transfer are explored from a dynamic
viewpoint, resulting in options to manage and mechanisms to adjust the interactions,
ranging from the early cut-off interactions to sustained interactions (Treibich et al. 2013).
For example, the study of effective governance modes of U–I collaborations garnered
interest from scholars by examining different levels of university involvement in relations
between firms and individual academics, also considering the mediating role of university
(Bodas Freitas et al. 2013; Torres et al. 2011)
. The interaction
process and knowledge transfer perspective also addresses the scope of different
interaction channels and the extent to which universities engage in different channels by
introducing the concepts of collaboration breadth and depth, respectively (Wang et al.
2015). This outlook allows to make interconnections with other perspectives, and analyse
the effectiveness of different interaction channels and the type of knowledge shared
mediated by the degree of partner absorptive capacity or proximity
(De Fuentes and
3.2.6 Cluster 6: Policy implications perspective (on university engagement)
Articles in this cluster analyse the management of U–I collaborations within different
institutional settings and the effects of such collaborations on the regional development.
This cluster is inter-linked with the ecosystem cluster (as a part of both co-citation analysis
and bibliographic coupling) with a higher focus on regional policy developments as a
potential catalyst or barrier for collaborative activities. Thus, this cluster is focused on
understanding the logics of policy developments and normative changes on different levels
(i.e., faculty, university, regional, and national) in the context of U–I collaborations,
acknowledging the heterogeneity of U–I collaboration actors
. Next to that,
tracking changes in the institutional context and regional policy developments to sustain
the innovation levels are central facets of this cluster
(Etzkowitz 2011; Berman 2012;
Robin and Schubert 2013)
. In the course of focusing on the university level, research
suggests that the designing of policies driven not only by monetary but also by a broader
range of incentives, such as reputational and intrinsic motives support the engagement in
research commercialisation activities
(D’Este and Perkmann 2011; Lam 2011)
. In turn,
when it comes to the regional level, the scope and potential societal and economic impact
of U–I interactions is increasingly assessed, and the corresponding policy developments
need to be considered
(Mathies and Slaughter 2013; Shah and Pahnke 2014)
substreams of this cluster address the effectiveness of legal appropriation instruments
regarding the scientific outputs of universities (Simeth and Raffo 2013) and the
development of specific, locally adjusted strategies, considering the aggregated regional and
(Svensson et al. 2012)
The results of bibliographic coupling suggest a dynamic evolution of different
perspectives. Two clusters with the highest number of publications (Cluster 1 and 2) received
less citations on average from the academic community than the next two clusters on the
list (Cluster 3 and 4) and, more interestingly, than the policy implications cluster (Cluster
6), which holds the highest number of average citations per article and the lowest number
of publications per cluster. While this finding continues to indicate a high popularity and
importance of the ecosystem perspective (Cluster 1) and the social relations perspective
(Cluster 2) in the research in the past years, more notable development could be attributed
to the previously noted policy implications perspective (Cluster 6), as well as to the
academic entrepreneurship perspective (Cluster 3) and distance perspective (Cluster 4).
This finding is intriguing in relation to the results of co-citation analysis. While the
distance perspective (Cluster 4) and the role of partner proximity remained leading in terms of
citations, it is not the most researched theme in the past 6 years, compared to other
perspectives. This finding is different from the results of co-citation analysis, where the
distance perspective had the highest number of publications and received citations. Certain
changes are related to the academic entrepreneurship perspective (Cluster 3). This theme
remained well-researched among the U–I academics; however, this research direction
shows an increased importance in terms of received citations, based on bibliographic
coupling results. In comparison, in the case of co-citation analysis, academic
entrepreneurship was not the leading perspective. Additionally, the fact that the policy
implications perspective (Cluster 6) has the highest number of citations on average per
article indicates the relevance of this research stream. This cluster is represented by a
variety of seminal works, highlighting a broad scope of the policy developments on
different levels of U–I interactions. Overall, the results show a dynamic evolution of the
research field and a development of interconnections among the research directions. This
finding, in turn, emphasises the need to identify future research avenues in relation to the
latest developments in the U–I literature (Table 2).
Lombardi et al.
Ankrah et al.
Gertner et al.
Grimaldi et al.
Van Looy et al.
Perkmann et al.
Bishop et al.
Gilsing et al.
De Fuentes and
et al. (2013);
Perkmann et al.
4 Discussion and future research agenda
This review presents the immense contribution that the analysis of U–I collaborations
makes to various research streams. However, a mounting interest in this topic requires a
consolidation with new theoretical and empirical insights. Specifically, the results of our
bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis of the U–I literature suggest several axes of
development that could help augment the contributions of U–I research. The presented
findings and future research avenues are of critical importance to the parties involved in the
U–I collaborations, including researchers and policy makers.
The U–I collaboration literature has expanded in the past two decades, recognising a
tremendous potential to facilitate economic and societal development on regional and
national levels by means of joint innovative developments and high-tech spin-offs. At the
same time, researchers indicated that the complexity of these collaborations is not well
(D’Este and Patel 2007; Petruzzelli 2011)
. The main perspectives that provide a
foundation for the U–I literature are illustrated in Fig. 7. Based on the co-citation analysis,
we identified four thematic clusters centred around distance and partner complementarity
(Cluster 1), academic entrepreneurship (Cluster 2), ecosystem (Cluster 3) and interaction
channels (Cluster 4) dimensions of U–I collaborations. While sharing a similar
development pattern, these dimensions were diversified and redesigned in the past 6 years,
therefore presenting a challenge to understand the scope of current research areas, and
particularly the future research advancements.
We tracked the evolution of the U–I literature and examined a transformation of the
current research dimensions in the field, using the bibliographic coupling technique. As
indicated in Fig. 8, the ecosystem (Cluster 1) and social relations perspectives (Cluster 2)
share an upward development in the period over the past 6 years, while levelling off
4819 5919 6219 6319 2719 3719 7919 8219 3819 4819 5819 6819 9819 0199 1919 2919 3919 4919 5991 6991 7919 8919 9919 0020 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002 7002 8200 9020 0120 1120 2120 3120
C1: Distance & Partner Complementarity perspective
C2: Academic Entrepreneurship perspective
C3: Ecosystem perspective
C4: Interaction Channels perspective
recently and maintaining a position of crucial research areas. The Interaction process and
the knowledge transfer perspective (Cluster 5) shows an increase of research articles in the
last couple of years, highlighting a broad variety of factors determining the efficiency of
the interaction process and relations to other perspectives. The policy implications
perspective (Cluster 6) remained relatively stable without major peaks, suggesting that policy
implications are not entirely explored and could be optimised. The most prominent
avenues for future research are related to the academic entrepreneurship (Cluster 3) and
distance perspective (Cluster 4). These research domains were studied in the past years;
however, researchers identified new sub-streams that also present stimuli for future studies.
The results of the quantitative bibliometric analysis of the U–I literature indicate that the
clusters share a notable portion of inter-linkages among the main elements of U–I
collaborations, suggesting a multi-layered nature of the U–I research field. Specifically, the
results of the co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling indicate that it is possible to
synthesise the U–I research field into three interconnected levels that form the primary
future research directions, based on the identified clusters: individual level (corresponding
to the social relations perspective, academic entrepreneurship perspective (i.e., young
graduates and academic staff level) and interaction process and knowledge transfer among
individuals); organisational level (distance perspective, academic entrepreneurship
perspective (i.e., university level) and organisational interaction process and knowledge
transfer); institutional level (ecosystem perspective and policy implications perspective).
The three interconnected levels address a variety of stakeholders, such as researchers,
universities, firms, TTCs (Technology Transfer Centres), governments, and ecosystems.
However, even though the literature acknowledges the diversity of stakeholders, most of
the studies pronounce the university perspective rather than the industry perspective on U–
4.1 The individual in university–industry collaborations
On the individual level, with regard to the social relations perspective, U–I scholars
recognise the importance of the relationships between the individuals involved in the
collaborative U–I activities. While the recent research endeavours must be applauded,
there is still a long way to go on the question of what individual-level characteristics and
motives should be possessed by academics and industrial partners to successfully
collaborate, and particularly to manage the relationships over time to achieve strong outcomes
(Filippetti and Savona 2017; Maietta 2015)
. Given that the characteristics and motives of
academics and industrial partners differ when it comes to U–I collaborations, in addition to
, it is likely that the mechanisms for governing U–I
relationships are highly varied in nature. In particular, future studies are recommended to
investigate which types of governance mechanisms are effective depending on partners’
motives and characteristics. For example, firms investing in university research projects
may be interested in an alignment of goals as well as commitment between the
(Mora-Valentin et al. 2004)
. A successful alliance needs goal-oriented
(Kale and Singh 2009)
, so that from the firm perspective it may be beneficial
to apply control mechanisms. However, as researchers tend to have a high need for
autonomy in setting research directions and managing their research in U–I projects
(Zalewska-Kurek et al. 2016)
, a balance between control-based and more open or
heterarchical governance may need to be negotiated to fit the expectations and needs of both
partners. With regard to the partners’ characteristics, for firm partners managing a portfolio
of relationships, weak ties/loosely coupled relations may be the preferred mechanism to
create spaces of dynamism and thereby generating profits from the engagement in a variety
of U–I collaborations. Weak ties are characterised by low interaction frequency and can
enable access to new, non-redundant knowledge
. However, stronger
ties might want to be established on behalf of the firm partner when interacting with a
specific star scientist or a group of scientists who significantly contribute to the firm’s
knowledge base. In turn, academics—due to their dual, complex nature of employment as
researchers at universities and as self-employed within U–I collaborations—may want to
build strong ties characterised by high interaction frequency, and social proximity to create
spaces of stability. In addition, stronger ties between the U–I collaboration partners might
be more effective for generating substantial knowledge-related benefits, while weaker ties
could be more suitable in service-provision partnerships for generating financial benefits on
the part of research organisations
(Arza and Carattoli 2017)
. It would be intriguing to
analyse which type of social capital comes to the fore in U–I collaborations, why, and with
what effects. Moreover, the governance mechanisms may vary according to the stage of the
cooperation. While there initially may be a strong focus on formal governance mechanisms
to reduce uncertainty within the collaboration, some partners may put more emphasis on
informal mechanisms such as trust as the U–I collaboration gradually develops—which
might explain why some U–I collaborations are more or less successful than others. This is
because in joint R&D, neither the goals nor the contributions of the partners can be defined
completely ex ante and thus hierarchical tools of control and sanction
(e.g., Adler 2001;
fail to coordinate innovative cooperative behavior over time (Hatak
et al. 2015). Here, we encourage researchers to extend current research by engaging in
cross-stage studies. Additionally, we must acknowledge that the U–I relationships are
shaped by institutional environments in which the academics and the industry partners are
embedded, thus affecting the (expected) outcomes from joint R&D activities
et al. 2012; Hemmert et al. 2014; Morandi 2013)
. Thus, it is necessary to consider the
institutional context as a moderator in the relationship between governance mechanisms
and outcomes of U–I collaborations. Moreover, future studies could focus on optimising
the management of a portfolio of incentives and initiatives that foster U–I linkages during
different evolutionary stages of partnerships
(Ankrah et al. 2013; Plewa et al. 2013b)
Correspondingly, there is a need to investigate which incentives not only enhance both
researchers and industry partners’ willingness to engage in U–I partnerships, but also foster
the development of long-lasting strategic alliances. Understanding the mechanisms
enabling to maintain long-term U–I relations would improve the viability of the knowledge
transfer, forming the basis for further R&D projects with reduced barriers. According to
Bienkowska and Klofsten (2012), fostering the development of relationships among the
partners could be achieved by promoting commercialisation of research results (CRR)
skills and providing new opportunities for PhD candidates through courses, graduate
schools and interactive research designs. At the same time the question remains of how U–I
collaboration can be made attractive for partners from the industry by incentives other than
Research focusing on Academic Entrepreneurship explores the characteristics and
motives of the academic entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial university, and the context in
which the actors of academic entrepreneurship are embedded, and their effects on spin-off
success. The central element connecting these layers of academic entrepreneurship is the
(Perkmann et al. 2013; Tartari and Breschi 2012)
. The increasing resources
devoted to understanding the behavioural outcomes associated with entrepreneurs’ identity
in general calls for U–I research that identifies different types of identities among academic
entrepreneurs in particular. This is an interesting avenue as academics need to integrate
their academic self-concept and their entrepreneurial self-concept, resulting in either
hybrid identities or pure identities, which, in turn, offer explanations of the commercial
behaviour of academics (Abreu and Grinevich 2017). In this regard, it is important to
explore the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations driving entrepreneurial behaviour of
academics, such as time spent and duration of engagement capturing behavioural intensity and
. To analyse behavioural intensity and persistence, one might use
experience sampling methodology
(Uy et al. 2010)
. As shown by research on the
motivations of academics to start a spin-off, their motives differ
(Fini et al. 2009; Hayter et al.
2016; Rizzo 2015)
so that their identities can also be expected to be heterogeneous
(Clarysse et al. 2011)
. Another interesting research avenue that we propose would be to
examine the university spin-offs’ (USOs) failures and the associated failure factors on the
level of the individual actors. While academic entrepreneurship has a long tradition of
examining success factors, it might actually be the focus on failure factors that has the
potential to provide counterintuitive and therefore relevant new insights. Furthermore, a
relatively new stream of literature points to the impact of students, recent graduates and
young academics on regional innovative development. Identifying the factors and
conditions that stimulate these actors to increasingly engage in the commercialisation activities
of their research and understanding the scope of this ecosystem would be of significant
(Laursen et al. 2011; Astebro et al. 2013; Wright et al. 2017)
. Such studies might
provide answers to questions that have been only partially addressed: What are the
characteristics of the graduates that start companies
(e.g., Larsson et al. 2017)
? Under what
conditions do they start their companies? Furthermore, what types of entrepreneurship
education (e.g., regular courses, bootcamps, start-up weekends, teaching methods directed
towards creating an entrepreneurial mind-set, attitude and orientation) actually increase
students’ and recent graduates’ entrepreneurial preferences and their subsequent translation
into start-up actions? For example, is the lean start-up methodology more effective the
traditional business methodology? Experimental studies might enable researchers to
disentangle the various influences of entrepreneurship education at the different sub-stages of
the entrepreneurial process, such as the development of intentions, start-up actions and
young venture development. In addition, exploring the effects of start-up activity by recent
university graduates, PhDs and post-docs on the human capital movement in the region and
the R&D performance of the region, respectively, are crucial research dimensions
et al. 2011)
. Recently, an excellent outlook on future academic entrepreneurship research
has been drawn by
Siegel and Wright (2015)
, to which we refer the interested reader. The
authors discuss in more detail some of the abovementioned avenues, among others.
4.2 The organisation in university–industry collaborations
On the organisational level, with regard to the academic entrepreneurship perspective, the
U–I literature can be consolidated into the analysis of the characteristics of universities
engaging in joint research activities, characteristics of firms seeking to collaborate with
academic partners and the characteristics of the collaboration process itself. There are
studies indicating why firms and universities engage in joint projects, but research on the
determinants of private and public gains of university involvement in research partnerships
with industrial partners is still at a nascent stage
. In this regard, much research
attention needs to be devoted to the heterogeneity of U–I partners. It is likely that the
antecedents and consequences of academic entrepreneurship differ when taking account of,
for example, the firm size, age, and competitive strategy of the industrial partner, and the
size, age/ranking, type of university. On a related note, research on the impact of a specific
department’s excellence regardless of the university ranking on decisions to engage in
partnerships on regional, national or international levels could yield interesting findings
(Laursen et al. 2011)
. Furthermore, while there have been calls for research on firms’
strategies when searching for and selecting academics as collaboration partners (see e.g.,
Perkmann and Walsh (2007)
, the industry’s criteria driving the choice of a specific
academic partner for a collaborative research project remains an underexplored topic
. Special attention needs to be devoted to the strategic and cultural fit between
university and industry partners for understanding the successful organisation and
management of their collaborative projects. Finally, new success factors of university
entrepreneurship projects should be examined in the future studies, which could be
achieved by the systematic evaluation of failed projects and collaborations, and
particularly the factors of failure at different stages of project life-cycle
(Bozeman et al. 2013;
Guzzini and Iacobucci 2017)
While the distance perspective offers an increasing understanding of the outcomes of
partner spatial, cognitive, organisational, social and institutional proximities, the
multidimensionality and broad scope of this perspective suggest further research opportunities
(Crescenzi et al. 2017; D’Este et al. 2013)
. The academic understanding of U–I
partnership’s evolvement and outcomes may benefit from exploring the interplay of different
types of proximities and associated dynamics
(Muscio and Pozzali 2013; Presutti et al.
. Here, future studies could further examine whether and how a specific type of
proximity can foster the development of other proximity types—for example, spatial
proximity may lead to social proximity—as well as whether one type of proximity may
replace another depending on the context in which the U–I collaboration is embedded
(Crescenzi et al. 2017). However, as the capturing of direct and particularly indirect effects
of partner proximity remains challenging, researchers are encouraged to develop
alternative outcome indicators to reliably estimate the effects of partner proximity in the
context of joint R&D activities
(D’Este et al. 2013; Fukugawa 2013)
. Moreover, our
review points to the benefits of focusing the distance perspective research on partner
centrality and closeness. For instance, what is the role of central partners within the
network regarding the joint project success
(von Raesfeld et al. 2012)
? Specifically, future
research could examine how central partner presence in collaborative projects affects the
capability to generate innovative outcomes, potentially through the optimisation of
accessible knowledge and technology inputs
(Qi Dong et al. 2017)
. In this regard, the role
of other factors complementing or mediating the impact of partner proximity is an
interesting area for future studies. For example, the availability of research resources, the
partner technological complementarity and the level of absorptive capacity in conjunction
with partner proximity remain important topics for future studies
(Bishop et al. 2011;
Laursen et al. 2011; Petruzzelli 2011)
. Another unexplored aspect of the proximity stream
within the U–I literature is the extent of industry involvement in the creation of university
spin-off (USOs). Academic entrepreneurship has mainly been supported by the university
(Meyer 2003; Fini et al. 2011; Grimaldi et al. 2011)
; however, it can be
also supported by the (local) industry. Simultaneously, firms may even decide for locations
that are geographically close to research organisations to benefit from knowledge spillovers
(Audretsch et al. 2005). Anecdotal evidence suggests that industry partners geographically
close to the university provide academic commercial ventures with access to facilities and
knowledge from their business development units (private business clusters or incubators)
rather than with substantial capital funds. While there is research on the shaping of
industries’ support in the early stages of spin-off development
(e.g., Zhang 2009)
mutual resource flows between USOs and their industry partners over time and in
conjunction with partner proximity have received little conceptual and empirical attention.
4.3 The institutions in university–industry collaborations
On the institutional level, the literature points to the economic and societal impact
generated by U–I collaborations on regional and national levels as well as to an increasing
importance of policy developments that would maximise the effectiveness of U–I
(Filippetti and Savona 2017)
. In the last decade, different configurations of Triple
Helix interactions that frequently form a complex system of inter-dependent relations have
been developed (Lei et al. 2012). Based on our review, future research embedded in the
ecosystem perspective would benefit from examining what types of Triple Helix network
configurations are most effective, considering institutional differences across countries and
(Etzkowitz 2011; Guan and Zhao 2013; van der Valk et al. 2011)
. In this regard,
prior research calls for the development of performance indicators that would reliably
predict what configurations are necessary to optimise collaborative project success between
(Feller 2017; Leydesdorff and Rafols 2011)
. Pursuing this
research avenue will become increasingly relevant due to the development of an
(Khan and Park 2011)
. In addition, given the recent increase in
opportunities (e.g., university/public funding support for U–I projects) and the threats (e.g., weak
IPR protection) in the context of (international) U–I collaboration, future research is
recommended to extend the framework of university–industry–government relations
towards Quadruple Helix, thus expanding the facets of U–I collaborations that are
(Leydesdorff 2012; Marcovich and Shinn 2011)
. Moreover, a relevant
exploration of network configurations needs to account for differences between industry sectors
and technology fields
(Guan and Zhao 2013; Kwon et al. 2012)
as well as between
scientific fields. It can be expected that all scientific fields have an impact on economy and
society; however, social sciences have largely been left out in U–I collaborations research
despite their contributions to the competitiveness and innovativeness of the economy by
providing e.g., new research tools and interventions in conjunction with consultancy,
knowledge on the effectiveness of management approaches, highly skilled and
entrepreneurially educated graduates among other outcomes. More research could be done
on the question of how and with what effects knowledge is transferred from social sciences
to the society at large.
With regard to the policy implications perspective, research argues that university–
industry–government interactions can be shaped by civic involvement and their
characteristics, in addition to cultural and social capital endowments
(Lombardi et al. 2012)
Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate how changes in the local institutional environment
foster the engagement of academics in collaborative research projects and university
(Fini et al. 2011)
. Conversely, it would be interesting to examine how U–I
collaborations affect policy development, requiring approaches that are multi-disciplinary
and historical in nature. In relation to the incentives that could stimulate engagement in U–
I collaborative projects on the part of academics, research should consider that
collaboration with industry does not necessarily foster success in academia. As indicated by
and Miozzo (2015)
, the engagement in industry-involved projects by physicists and
engineering Ph.D. researchers is negatively related to their career in academia. It is
therefore not only up to the university but the entire science system including policy
makers to come up with an incentive scheme specifying how and when academics can be
promoted if they engage in the third mission of the university. This issue need to be further
explored by research, outlining the characteristics and conditions of best practices.
The process perspective (interaction process and knowledge transfer cluster) of U–I
collaborations is not a core research stream; however, there is a strong need for future
examinations, especially if we want to understand the complex processes of interaction
between academia and industry, resulting in a long-term exchange of knowledge and
technological resources at all levels of U–I collaboration
(Gilsing et al. 2011)
. In line with
McMullen and Dimov (2013)
, there are a number of conceptual questions that require
answers if a process perspective to U–I collaborations shall gain momentum: What is the
U–I collaboration journey, when has this journey started, when has this journey concluded,
does it require particular interactions to progress; and what remains constant and what
changes throughout the process of interaction between U–I partners? Longitudinal studies
could help to answer those questions and capture the depth and breadth of interaction
cycles, beginning with an initiating action and both the academics’ and industry partners’
reactions. Finally, our review points to the benefits of extending the level of analysis of
future U–I interaction process studies beyond the individual level to ask—among other
questions—whether industry partners in the same industry react in similar ways, how
interaction is developed at higher levels, that is between the firm, the university and the
government, and how such interactions shape the dynamics of academia, the industry and
the institutional environment.
A summary of the emerging patterns outlining the future research agenda is provided in
4.4 Research limitations
Inevitably, this study also has certain limitations paving the way for several extensions of
the bibliometric analysis of U–I collaboration research and additional analyses. First, this
What are the mechanisms to effectively
integrate different motives of U–I
collaboration partners during different stages
of U–I collaborations?
How do cognitive, normative and regulatory
differences affect the coordination and
productivity of relationships among U–I
Through which strategic incentives can
universities motivate both researchers and
firms to enter into U–I partnerships and turn
them into lasting strategic alliances?
How can we differentiate between different
types of entrepreneurs in terms of academic
entrepreneurial identity, and how do different
types of identities affect the success of U–I
How do academic entrepreneurs contribute to
the failure of USOs?
What is the impact of students and recent
graduates on the regional economic
development by means of academic/student
Which U–I interaction channels stimulate the
generation of knowledge-related and
monetary benefits in the short term and long
term on the individual level?
Which organisational characteristics of the
university and the industry partner explain
success at different stages of the spin-off
How does the quality of a university department
affect the U–I collaboration success,
notwithstanding the overall quality of the
Which factors influence the industrial partners’
selection of academic partners for
collaborative research partnerships?
Which characteristics of universities and
industrial partners, and their
interorganizational collaboration contribute to the
failure of U–I partnerships?
How does the interplay of different partner
proximities influence the evolution and
performance outcomes of U–I collaborations?
Which alternative success indicators can be
used to capture the dynamics of partner
What is the impact of partner network position
and technological complementarity on the
performance of U–I collaborations?
study investigates a specific dataset on U–I collaborations. However, the results show that
each of the identified perspectives in this paper could be investigated independently. Thus,
it is necessary to extend the scope of the U–I literature among the identified research
perspectives. Additionally, using other keywords for data collection may lead to broader
research directions. Second, the main goal of this study was to grasp the latest research
advancements. Future studies could explore the interplay of our findings in comparison to
the entire field while imposing no time limitations. Third, our dataset is focused on the
most recent publications; therefore, the weight of the publications used for creating the
clusters of literature will change according to the citation patterns of this research field.
Finally, imposing a threshold on the number of citations for co-citation hinders an analysis
of the entire literature, which also ignores potentially relevant but primarily recent
publications. An investigation of different datasets compiled on the basis of other keyword
combinations and extended period of publication time could enable us to identify
additional elements of U–I collaborations and academic entrepreneurship and establish new
interlinkages across the U–I ecosystem.
This study examined the nature of the U–I collaborations research using both quantitative
and qualitative methods of analyses, concluding that the research field is complex and
multi-faceted. Based on co-citation analysis, we analysed the evolution of the research field
and identified fundamental research themes. By using the method of bibliographic
coupling, we were able to investigate current and emerging topics of interest in the study of U–
I collaborations. Based on our comprehensive content analysis, we were able to identify
linkages between the different perspectives adopted in U–I collaborations research, thus
contributing to integration of diverse research streams and a clarification of the scope of the
U–I collaborations literature. The findings of our bibliometric study suggest that the U–I
collaborations research can be seen as a multi-layered ecosystem consisting of
interconnected perspectives on individual, organisational and institutional levels. Our study
concludes by offering a nuanced research agenda with valuable implications for academics and
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Bart van Looy for a constructive feedback and helpful
comments on the earlier versions of this paper, especially at the early stage of this work, as well as
participants of the 2017 R&D Management conference in Leuven for useful suggestions. The authors also
acknowledge the support of the University of Twente (BMS) Tech4People initiative.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Abramo , G. , D'Angelo , C. A. , & Di Costa , F. ( 2011a ). University-industry research collaboration: A model to assess university capability . Higher Education , 62 ( 2 ), 163 - 181 .
Abramo , G. , D'Angelo , C. A. , Di Costa , F. , & Solazzi , M. ( 2011b ). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 36 ( 1 ), 84 - 100 .
Abreu , M. , & Grinevich , V. ( 2017 ). Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 763 - 794 .
Adler , P. S. ( 2001 ). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism . Organization Science , 12 ( 2 ), 215 - 234 .
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 .
Anselin , L. , Varga , A. , & Acs , Z. ( 1997 ). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations . Journal of Urban Economics , 42 ( 3 ), 422 - 448 .
Arza , V. ( 2010 ). Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: Conceptual framework inspired by Latin America . Science and Public Policy , 37 ( 7 ), 473 - 484 .
Arza , V. , & Carattoli , M. ( 2017 ). Personal ties in university-industry linkages: A case-study from Argentina . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 814 - 840 .
Astebro , T. , Bazzazian , N. , & Braguinsky , S. ( 2012 ). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy . Research Policy , 41 ( 4 ), 663 - 677 .
Astebro , T. , Braunerhjelm , P. , & Brostrom , A. ( 2013 ). Does academic entrepreneurship pay? Industrial and Corporate Change , 22 ( 1 ), 281 - 311 .
Audretsch , D. B. , Lehmann , E. E. , & Warning , S. ( 2005 ). University spillovers and new firm location . Research Policy , 34 , 1113 - 1122 .
Bekkers , R. , & Bodas Freitas , I. M. ( 2008 ). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter ? Research Policy, 37 ( 10 ), 1837 - 1853 .
Bercovitz , J. , & Feldman , M. ( 2008 ). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level . Organization Science , 19 ( 1 ), 69 - 89 .
Berman , E. P. ( 2012 ). Explaining the move toward the market in US academic science: How institutional logics can change without institutional entrepreneurs . Theory and Society , 41 ( 3 ), 261 - 299 .
Bienkowska , D. , & Klofsten , M. ( 2012 ). Creating entrepreneurial networks: Academic entrepreneurship, mobility and collaboration during Ph.D. education . Higher Education , 64 ( 2 ), 207 - 222 .
Bishop , K. , D'Este , P. , & Neely , A. ( 2011 ). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity . Research Policy , 40 ( 1 ), 30 - 40 .
Bodas Freitas , I. M. , Geuna , A. , & Rossi , F. ( 2013 ). Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university-industry interactions . Research Policy , 42 ( 1 ), 50 - 62 .
Boyack , K. W. , & Klavans , R. ( 2010 ). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 ( 12 ), 2389 - 2404 .
Bozeman , B. ( 2000 ). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory . Research Policy, 29 ( 4-5 ), 627 - 655 .
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 .
Bramwell , A. , & Wolfe , D. A. ( 2008 ). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37 ( 8 ), 1175 - 1187 .
Carayannis , E. G. , & Campbell , D. F. J. ( 2012 ). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems (pp. 1 - 63 ). New York, NY: Springer.
Clarysse , B. , Tartari , V. , & Salter , A. ( 2011 ). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship . Research Policy , 40 ( 8 ), 1084 - 1093 .
Cohen , W. M. , & Levinthal , D. A. ( 1989 ). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal , 99 ( 397 ), 569 .
Cohen , W. M. , & Levinthal , D. A. ( 1990 ). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation . Administrative Science Quarterly , 35 ( 1 ), 128 .
Cohen , W. M. , Nelson , R. R. , & Walsh , J. P. ( 2002 ). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science , 48 ( 1 ), 1 - 23 .
Comacchio , A. , Bonesso , S. , & Pizzi , C. ( 2012 ). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of Technology Transfer Centres . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 37 ( 6 ), 943 - 966 .
Crescenzi , R. , Filippetti , A. , & Iammarino , S. ( 2017 ). Academic inventors: Collaboration and proximity with industry . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 730 - 762 .
D'Este , P. , Guy , F. , & Iammarino , S. ( 2013 ). 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. , & 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 .
Davey , T. , Rossano , S. , & van der Sijde , P. ( 2016 ). Does context matter in academic entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 41 ( 6 ), 1457 - 1482 .
De Fuentes , C. , & Dutrenit , G. ( 2012 ). Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit . Research Policy , 41 ( 9 ), 1666 - 1682 .
De Fuentes , C. , & Dutrenit , G. ( 2016 ). Geographic proximity and university-industry interaction: The case of Mexico . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 41 ( 2 ), 329 - 348 .
Debackere , K. , & Veugelers , R. ( 2005 ). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links . Research Policy , 34 ( 3 ), 321 - 342 .
Delgado Garc ´ıa , J. B., De Quevedo Puente , E. , & Blanco Mazagatos , V. ( 2015 ). How affect relates to entrepreneurship: A systematic review of the literature and research agenda . International Journal of Management Reviews , 17 ( 2 ), 191 - 211 .
Di Gregorio , D. , & Shane , S. ( 2003 ). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy , 32 ( 2 ), 209 - 227 .
Diez-Vial , I. , & Montoro-Sanchez , A. ( 2017 ). Research evolution in science parks and incubators: Foundations and new trends . Scientometrics , 110 ( 3 ), 1243 - 1272 .
Dutre ´nit, G., De Fuentes , C. , & Torres , A. ( 2010 ). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: Evidence from Mexico . Science and Public Policy , 37 ( 7 ), 513 - 526 .
Eisenhardt , K. ( 1989 ). Building theories from case study research . The Academy of Management Review , 14 ( 4 ), 532 - 550 .
Etzkowitz , H. ( 1984 ). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American Academic Science . Minerva, 21 ( 2-3 ), 198 - 233 .
Etzkowitz , H. ( 2003a ). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university . Research Policy, 32 ( 1 ), 109 - 121 .
Etzkowitz , H. ( 2003b ). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations . Social Science Information , 42 ( 3 ), 293 - 337 .
Etzkowitz , H. ( 2011 ). Normative change in science and the birth of the Triple Helix . Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales , 50 ( 3 - 4 , SI), 549 - 568 .
Etzkowitz , H. , & Klofsten , M. ( 2005 ). The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development . R& D Management , 35 ( 3 ), 243 - 255 .
Etzkowitz , H. , & Leydesdorff , L. ( 2000 ). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ''Mode 2'' to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations . Research Policy , 29 ( 2 ), 109 - 123 .
Feller , I. ( 2017 ). Assessing the societal impact of publicly funded research . The Journal of Technology Transfer . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9602-z.
Filippetti , A. , & Savona , M. ( 2017 ). University-industry linkages and academic engagements: Individual behaviours and firms' barriers. Introduction to the special section . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 719 - 729 .
Fini , R. , Grimaldi , R. , Santoni , S. , & Sobrero , M. ( 2011 ). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs . Research Policy , 40 ( 8 , SI), 1113 - 1127 .
Fini , R. , Grimaldi , R. , & Sobrero , M. ( 2009 ). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders' incentives . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 34 ( 4 ), 380 - 402 .
Fleming , L. , & Sorenson , O. ( 2004 ). Science as a map in technological search . Strategic Management Journal , 25 ( 89 ), 909 - 928 .
Frasquet , M. , Calderon , H. , & Cervera , A. ( 2012 ). University-industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University . Higher Education, 64 ( 1 ), 85 - 98 .
Fukugawa , N. ( 2013 ). University spillovers into small technology-based firms: Channel, mechanism, and geography . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 38 ( 4 ), 415 - 431 .
Gerbin , A. , & Drnovsek , M. ( 2016 ). Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: A review and a conceptual framework . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 41 ( 5 ), 979 - 1076 .
Gertner , D. , Roberts , J. , & Charles , D. ( 2011 ). University-industry collaboration: A CoPs approach to KTPs . Journal of Knowledge Management , 15 ( 4 ), 625 - 647 .
Geuna , A. , & Muscio , A. ( 2009 ). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature . Minerva , 47 ( 1 ), 93 - 114 .
Gilsing , V. , Bekkers , R. , Freitas , I. M. B. , & van der Steen , M. ( 2011 ). Differences in technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries: Transfer mechanisms and barriers . Technovation , 31 ( 12 ), 638 - 647 .
Granovetter , M. S. ( 1973 ). The strength of weak ties . American Journal of Sociology , 78 ( 6 ), 1360 - 1380 .
Granovetter , M. ( 1985 ). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness . American Journal of Sociology , 91 ( 3 ), 481 - 510 .
Grimaldi , R. , Kenney , M. , Siegel , D. S. , & Wright , M. ( 2011 ). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship . Research Policy , 40 ( 8 ), 1045 - 1057 .
Guan , J., & Zhao , Q. ( 2013 ). The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals . Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 80 ( 7 ), 1271 - 1286 .
Guzzini , E. , & Iacobucci , D. ( 2017 ). Project failures and innovation performance in university-firm collaborations . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 865 - 883 .
Hatak , I. , Fink , M. , & Frank , H. ( 2015 ). Business freedom, corruption and the performance of trusting cooperation partners: Empirical findings from six European countries . Review of Managerial Science , 9 ( 3 ), 523 - 547 .
Hayter , C. S. , Lubynsky , R. , & Maroulis , S. ( 2016 ). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 6 ), 1237 - 1254 .
Hemmert , M. , Bstieler , L. , & Okamuro , H. ( 2014 ). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university-industry research collaborations in the US, Japan , and South Korea. Technovation, 34 ( 10 ), 605 - 616 .
Henderson , R. , Jaffe , A. B. , & Trajtenberg , M. ( 1998 ). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965 - 1988 . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 80 ( 1 ), 119 - 127 .
Holmes , L. ( 2013 ). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education , 38 ( 4 ), 538 - 554 .
Jaffe , A. B. ( 1989 ). Real effects of academic research. The american economic review . Nashville: American Economic Association.
Jaffe , A. B. , Trajtenberg , M. , & Henderson , R. ( 1993 ). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 108 ( 3 ), 577 - 598 .
Kale , P. , & Singh , H. ( 2009 ). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 , 45 - 62 .
Kessler , M. M. ( 1963 ). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers . American Documentation , 14 ( 1 ), 10 - 25 .
Khan , G. F. , & Park , H. W. ( 2011 ). Measuring the Triple Helix on the web: Longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government relationship in Korea . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 62 ( 12 ), 2443 - 2455 .
Khan , G. F. , & Park , H. W. ( 2013 ). The e-government research domain: A Triple Helix network analysis of collaboration at the regional, country, and institutional levels . Government Information Quarterly , 30 ( 2 ), 182 - 193 .
Klevorick , A. K. , Levin , R. C. , Nelson , R. R. , & Winter , S. G. ( 1995 ). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities . Research Policy , 24 ( 2 ), 185 - 205 .
Kova´cs, A ., Van Looy , B. , & Cassiman , B. ( 2015 ). Exploring the scope of open innovation: A bibliometric review of a decade of research . Scientometrics, 104 ( 3 ), 951 - 983 .
Kwon , K.-S., Park , H. W. , So , M. , & Leydesdorff , L. ( 2012 ). Has globalization strengthened South Korea's national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific coauthorship relationships in South Korea . Scientometrics, 90 ( 1 ), 163 - 176 .
Kyoung-Joo , L. ( 2011 ). From interpersonal networks to inter-organizational alliances for university-industry collaborations in Japan: The case of the Tokyo Institute of Technology . R& D Management , 41 ( 2 , SI), 190 - 201 .
Lam , A. ( 2011 ). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'? Research Policy, 40 ( 10 ), 1354 - 1368 .
Larsson , J. P. , Wennberg , K. , Wiklund , J. , & Wright , M. ( 2017 ). Location choices of graduate entrepreneurs . Research Policy , 46 ( 8 ), 1490 - 1504 .
Laursen , K. , Reichstein , T. , & Salter , A. ( 2011 ). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom . Regional Studies , 45 ( 4 ), 507 - 523 .
Lee , H. , & Miozzo , M. ( 2015 ). How does working on university-industry collaborative projects affect science and engineering doctorates' careers? Evidence from a UK research-based university . Journal of Technology Transfer , 40 ( 2 ), 293 - 317 .
Lehmann , E. E. , & Menter , M. ( 2016 ). University-industry collaboration and regional wealth . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 41 ( 6 ), 1284 - 1307 .
Lei , X.-P. , Zhao , Z.-Y. , Zhang , X. , Chen , D.- Z. , Huang , M.-H. , & Zhao , Y.-H. ( 2012 ). The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university-industry-government in China based on patent analysis . Scientometrics , 90 ( 1 ), 231 - 251 .
Lengyel , B. , & Leydesdorff , L. ( 2011 ). Regional innovation systems in Hungary: The failing synergy at the national level . Regional Studies , 45 ( 5 ), 677 - 693 .
Leydesdorff , L. ( 2012 ). The Triple Helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy ? Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 3 ( 1 ), 25 - 35 .
Leydesdorff , L. , & Deakin , M. ( 2011 ). The triple-helix model of smart cities: A neo-evolutionary perspective . Journal of Urban Technology , 18 ( 2 , SI), 53 - 63 .
Leydesdorff , L. , & Fritsch , M. ( 2006 ). Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics . Research Policy , 35 ( 10 ), 1538 - 1553 .
Leydesdorff , L. , & Rafols , I. ( 2011 ). Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of patterns of network formation . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 62 ( 5 ), 846 - 860 .
Leydesdorff , L. , & Sun , Y. ( 2009 ). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 60 ( 4 ), 778 - 788 .
Link , A. N. ( 2015 ). Capturing knowledge: Private gains and public gains from university research partnerships . Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship , 11 ( 2 ), 139 - 206 .
Lockett , A. , & Wright , M. ( 2005 ). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies . Research Policy , 34 ( 7 ), 1043 - 1057 .
Lombardi , P. , Giordano , S. , Farouh , H. , & Yousef , W. ( 2012 ). Modelling the smart city performance . Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research , 25 ( 2 , SI), 137 - 149 .
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 .
Mansfield , E. ( 1991 ). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy , 20 ( 1 ), 1 - 12 .
Mansfield , E. ( 1995 ). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 77 ( 1 ), 55 .
Marcovich , A. , & Shinn , T. ( 2011 ). From the Triple Helix to a quadruple helix? The case of dip-pen nanolithography . Minerva , 49 ( 2 ), 175 - 190 .
Mathies , C. , & Slaughter , S. ( 2013 ). University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network . Research Policy , 42 ( 6-7 ), 1286 - 1300 .
McMullen , J. S. , & Dimov , D. ( 2013 ). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process . Journal of Management Studies , 50 ( 8 ), 1481 - 1512 .
Meyer , M. ( 2003 ). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms . R& D Management , 33 ( 2 ), 107 - 115 .
Meyer , M. , Grant , K. , Morlacchi , P. , & Weckowska , D. ( 2014 ). Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: A bibliometric perspective . Scientometrics , 99 ( 1 ), 151 - 174 .
Minguillo , D. , Tijssen , R. , & Thelwall , M. ( 2015 ). Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK . Scientometrics, 102 ( 1 ), 701 - 725 .
Morandi , V. ( 2013 ). The management of industry-university joint research projects: How do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? The Journal of Technology Transfer , 38 ( 2 ), 69 - 92 .
Mora-Valentin , E. M. , Montoro-Sanchez , A. , & Guerras-Martin , L. A. ( 2004 ). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations . Research Policy , 33 , 17 - 40 .
Mowery , D. C. , Nelson , R. R. , Sampat , B. N. , & Ziedonis , A. A. ( 2001 ). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980 . Research Policy, 30 ( 1 ), 99 - 119 .
Muscio , A. , & Pozzali , A. ( 2013 ). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 38 ( 4 ), 486 - 508 .
O'Shea , R. P. , Allen , T. J. , Chevalier , A. , & Roche , F. ( 2005 ). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities . Research Policy , 34 ( 7 ), 994 - 1009 .
Park , H. W. , Hong , H. D. , & Leydesdorff , L. ( 2005 ). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators . Scientometrics , 65 ( 1 ), 3 - 27 .
Perkmann , M. , Neely , A. , & Walsh , K. ( 2011 ). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system . R& D Management , 41 ( 2 , SI), 202 - 216 .
Perkmann , M. , Tartari , V. , McKelvey , M. , Autio , E. , Brostro¨m, A., D'Este , P. , et al. ( 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 .
Petruzzelli , A. M. ( 2011 ). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis . Technovation , 31 ( 7 ), 309 - 319 .
Plewa , C. , Korff , N. , Baaken , T. , & Macpherson , G. ( 2013a ). University-industry linkage evolution: An empirical investigation of relational success factors . R& D Management , 43 ( 4 ), 365 - 380 .
Plewa , C. , Korff , N. , Johnson , C. , Macpherson , G. , Baaken , T. , & Rampersad , G. C. ( 2013b ). The evolution of university-industry linkages-A framework . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 30 ( 1 ), 21 - 44 .
Ponds , R. , Oort , F. V. , & Frenken , K. ( 2010 ). Innovation, spillovers and university-industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach . Journal of Economic Geography , 10 ( 2 ), 231 - 255 .
Presutti , M. , Boari , C. , Majocchi , A. , & Molina-Morales , X. ( 2017 ). Distance to customers, absorptive capacity, and innovation in high-tech firms: The dark face of geographical proximity . Journal of Small Business Management . https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12323.
Qi Dong , J. , McCarthy , K. J. , & Schoenmakers , W. W. M. E. ( 2017 ). How central is too central? Organizing interorganizational collaboration networks for breakthrough innovation . Journal of Product Innovation Management , 34 ( 4 ), 526 - 542 .
Rasmussen , E. , & Wright , M. ( 2015 ). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 40 ( 5 ), 782 - 799 .
Rizzo , U. ( 2015 ). Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 40 ( 2 ), 198 - 226 .
Robin , S. , & Schubert , T. ( 2013 ). Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany . Research Policy, 42 ( 1 ), 149 - 166 .
Rosenbusch , N. , Brinckmann , J. , & Bausch , A. ( 2011 ). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs . Journal of Business Venturing , 26 ( 4 ), 441 - 457 .
Salter , A. J. , & Martin , B. R. ( 2001 ). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review . Research Policy , 30 ( 3 ), 509 - 532 .
Santoro , M. D. , & Chakrabarti , A. K. ( 2002 ). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions . Research Policy, 31 ( 7 ), 1163 - 1180 .
Schartinger , D. , Rammer , C. , Fischer , M. M. , & Frohlich , J. ( 2002 ). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants . Research Policy , 31 ( 3 ), 303 - 328 .
Schmidt , F. L. , & Hunter , J. ( 2004 ). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 162 - 173 .
Shah , S. K. , & Pahnke , E. C. ( 2014 ). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 39 ( 5 ), 780 - 792 .
Siegel , D. S. , Waldman , D. , & Link , A. ( 2003 ). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study . Research Policy , 32 ( 1 ), 27 - 48 .
Siegel , D. S. , & Wright , M. ( 2015 ). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management , 26 ( 4 ), 582 - 595 .
Simeth , M. , & Raffo , J. D. ( 2013 ). What makes companies pursue an open science strategy ? Research Policy, 42 ( 9 ), 1531 - 1543 .
Small , H. ( 1973 ). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents . Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 24 ( 4 ), 265 - 269 .
Soh , P.-H. , & Subramanian , A. M. ( 2014 ). When do firms benefit from university-industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination . Journal of Business Venturing , 29 ( 6 ), 807 - 821 .
Svensson , P. , Klofsten , M. , & Etzkowitz , H. ( 2012 ). An entrepreneurial university strategy for renewing a declining industrial city: The Norrkoping way . European Planning Studies , 20 ( 4 ), 505 - 525 .
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 .
Tartari , V. , Perkmann , M. , & Salter , A. ( 2014 ). In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists . Research Policy , 43 ( 7 ), 1189 - 1203 .
Teixeira , A. A. C. , & Mota , L. ( 2012 ). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university-industry links . Scientometrics , 93 ( 3 ), 719 - 743 .
Tether , B. S. , & Tajar , A. ( 2008 ). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base . Research Policy , 37 ( 6-7 ), 1079 - 1095 .
Thursby , J. G. , & Thursby , M. C. ( 2002 ). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing . Management Science , 48 ( 1 ), 90 - 104 .
Torres , A. , Dutrenit , G. , Sampedro , J. L. , & Becerra , N. ( 2011 ). What are the factors driving universityindustry linkages in latecomer firms: Evidence from Mexico . Science and Public Policy , 38 ( 1 , SI), 31 - 42 .
Treibich , T. , Konrad , K. , & Truffer , B. ( 2013 ). A dynamic view on interactions between academic spin-offs and their parent organizations . Technovation , 33 ( 12 ), 450 - 462 .
Uy , M. A. , Foo , M. D. , & Aguinis , H. ( 2010 ). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research . Organizational Research Methods , 13 ( 1 ), 31 - 54 .
van der Valk , T., Chappin , M. M. H. , & Gijsbers , G. W. ( 2011 ). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies . Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 78 ( 1 ), 25 - 39 .
van Eck , N. J. , & Waltman , L. ( 2007 ). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects (pp. 299 - 306 ). Berlin: Springer.
van Eck , N. J. , & Waltman , L. ( 2009 ). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some wellknown similarity measures . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 60 ( 8 ), 1635 - 1651 .
van Eck , N. J. , & Waltman , L. ( 2010 ). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping . Scientometrics , 84 ( 2 ), 523 - 538 .
Van Looy , B. , Landoni , P. , Callaert , J., van Pottelsberghe, B. , Sapsalis , E. , & Debackere , K. ( 2011 ). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs . Research Policy , 40 ( 4 ), 553 - 564 .
Van Looy , B. , Ranga , M. , Callaert , J. , Debackere , K. , & Zimmermann , E. ( 2004 ). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Mattheweffect? Research Policy, 33 ( 3 ), 425 - 441 .
Villani , E. , Rasmussen , E. , & Grimaldi , R. ( 2017 ). How intermediary organizations facilitate universityindustry technology transfer: A proximity approach . Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 114 , 86 - 102 .
von Raesfeld , A. , Geurts , P. , Jansen , M. , Boshuizen , J. , & Luttge , R. ( 2012 ). Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes: A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands . Technovation, 32 ( 3 - 4 , SI), 227 - 233 .
Waltman , L., van Eck , N. J. , & Noyons , E. C. M. ( 2010 ). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks . Journal of Informetrics , 4 ( 4 ), 629 - 635 .
Wang , Y. , Yu , Y. , Chen , M. , Zhang , X. , Wiedmann , H. , & Feng , X. ( 2015 ). Simulating industry: A holistic approach for bridging the gap between engineering education and industry. Part I: A conceptual framework and methodology . International Journal of Engineering Education , 31 ( 1 , A) , 165 - 173 .
Williamson , O. E. ( 1991 ). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives . Administrative Science Quarterly , 36 ( 2 ), 269 .
Wirsich , A. , Kock , A. , Strumann , C. , & Schultz , C. ( 2016 ). Effects of university-industry collaboration on technological newness of firms . Journal of Product Innovation Management , 33 ( 6 ), 708 - 725 .
Wright , M. , Clarysse , B. , Lockett , A. , & Knockaert , M. ( 2008 ). Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries . Research Policy , 37 ( 8 ), 1205 - 1223 .
Wright , M. , Siegel , D. S. , & Mustar , P. ( 2017 ). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 ( 4 ), 909 - 922 .
Zahra , S. A. , & George , G. ( 2002 ). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension . Academy of Management Review , 27 ( 2 ), 185 - 203 .
Zalewska-Kurek , K. , Egedova , K. , Peter , A. T. M. , & Roosendaal , H. E. ( 2016 ). Knowledge transfer activities of scientists in nanotechnology . The Journal of Technology Transfer . https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-016-9467-6.
Zhang , J. ( 2009 ). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data . The Journal of Technology Transfer , 34 ( 3 ), 255 - 285 .
Zucker , L. G. , & Darby , M. R. ( 1996 ). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 93 ( 23 ), 12709 - 12716 .