Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of basic research and applied research on the universities’ innovation capabilities: the moderating role of private research funding

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the impacts of basic research and applied research on the universities’ innovation capabilities and examines the role of private research funding. First, this paper divides universities’ innovation capabilities into scientific innovation capabilities and technological innovation capabilities according to the Pasteur’s quadrant paradigm. Second, based on a survey of 61 universities directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education of China, this study conducts an empirical analysis using the partial least squares path model. The results indicate that the complementary or substitutable effect of basic research and applied research on the promotion of universities’ innovation capabilities is different in the two dimension. Furthermore, the private research funding negatively moderates the effect of applied research on universities’ innovation capabilities, as well as the two dimensions. The paper provides quantitative evidence for Chinese practice from universities’ perspective and proposes recommendations for future development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The terms ‘industry’, ‘business’, ‘private’, and ‘market’ funding must be understood as synonymous locutions referring to funding that universities raise from scientific activities to conduct research activities, consultancies and services sold on the market in response to the exclusive interest of the commissioning entity, independent from its public or private legal nature, which can be regarded as an effective proxy of collaborations capable of activating knowledge transfer processes based on high relationality (Muscio et al., 2013). Briefly, private research funding is funding that industry and institutions sponsor (Thursby and Thursby, 2011a). It is provided in one of the three manners, either ‘contracts’, ‘consulting’ or ‘cooperative agreements’ (Bozeman and Gaughan, 2007).

  2. In China, universities belong to two major categories: universities directly under the central government and those managed by local governments. The former are mainly those directly affiliated to the Ministry of Education. After the adjustment of the university management system, a group of strong, distinct characteristics of the university fellunder the management of the Ministry of Education. Since the foundation of the People’s Republic of China, most key universities have been directly affiliated to the Ministry of Education. Most universities directly under the Ministry of Education are funded by Project 985 and Project 211. 985 project was announced in 1998 to build 30 world-class prestigious schools. So far, there have been 39 universities funded by Project 985 in China. 211 project was approved in 1995, which purpose is to build 100 famous schools in China. So far, there have been 116 universities funded by Project 211 in China. The relationship between the three kinds of universities is, all 985 universities are 211 universities, all universities directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education are 211 universities, and most 985 universities are universities directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. Therefore, universities directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education are those ranking top university in China, which have a graduate school and a 985 subject platform with strong research capabilities. In addition, these universities have resource advantage with funds from the Ministry of Education and local government support. With sufficient funds, they develop faster than others.

  3. The statistical information does not have a specific database, but instead has multiple databases. For example, the statistical information of the South China University of Technology was provided by a third party company, Innography, which is a large patent document database that includes more than 100 million patent documents from over 100 countries.

  4. Scientific works published by official publishing departments, including public and internal issuing.

  5. Publication of academic papers, including foreign academic journals.

  6. This indicator is not one of statistical information. PCE is the number of articles co-authored with enterprises. The data source is Web of Science.

  7. Patent authorization. The data source comes from multiple databases, not just SIPO-issued patents or USPTO and so on.

  8. Technical transfer fees from the technology transfer contrast. The contract of technology transfer includes four types: patent assignment contracts, transfer contracts of patent application rights, transfer technology secret contracts and licensing contracts.

  9. In reality, university-industry collaboration means the linkages between the university and industry in most countries, while in China, it means the collaboration between three parties, including the university, industry and research institution. Institutions are generally established by the state with a certain public interest but do not belong to government agencies. In general, the government will provide financial assistance to these institutions, whetherfully allocating funds to public institutions or funding different institutions. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is a typical representative of institutions.

  10. The division of universities types is based on subject by the Ministry of Education of China. The existing universities are divided into 13 categories. However, they are divided into 6 categories based on the GaodengXuexiaoKejiTongjiZiliaoHuibian, comprehensive, technology, agriculture and forestry, medicine, normal and others. Comprehensive university refers to an institution with a comprehensive discipline (including philanthropy, literature, science, engineering, management and other disciplines), a large scale of school, strong scientific research strength and comprehensive strength powerful, such as Peking university. Technology university is developed on the basis of applied science, physics, chemistry and other basic sciences, to solve the needs of industries, such as South China University of Technology. Agriculture and forestry university refers to college with agroforestry as the main subject, such as China Agricultural University. Medicine university refers to college with majors in medicine, such as China Pharmaceutical University. Normal university refers to university mainly based on teacher education, such as Central China Normal University. In addition to these five types of university, other types of schools are collectively referred to as others university. In this paper, others university refers to legal and language school, such as China University of Political Science and Law, Communication University of China.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Costa, F. D., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6–7), 498–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35(1), 37–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2015). Technological innovation and integrated university research centers: Coping with management complexities. Engineering Management Journal, 1(2), 35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1616–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C., & Allaoui, S. (2012). Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 41(9), 1589–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research policy, 37(10), 1837–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, P. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2015). The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education, 70(4), 689–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences—An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(6), 368–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research policy, 36(5), 694–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BrusoniS, G. A. (2003). An international comparison of sectoral knowledge bases: Persistence and integration in the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 32(10), 1897–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 48(3), 231–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderinia, M., & FranzoniaC, V. A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: the effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantisani, A. (2006). Technological innovation processes revisited. Technovation, 26(11), 1294–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., & Li-Hua, R. (2011). Modes of technological leapfrogging: Five case studies from China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(1), 93–108

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. M., Sklute, E., Dyar, M. D., Barefield, J. E., & Wiens, R. C. (2009). Multivariate analysis of remote laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy spectra using partial least squares, principal component analysis, and related techniques. SpectrochimicaActa Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 64(1), 79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Toole, A. A. (2015). Delay and secrecy: Does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 251–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics work with industry? A study of the relationship between collaboration rationales and channels of interaction. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J. Y., & Hong, L. (2010). On the orientation of pasteur’s quadrant in the scientific research in Japanese universities. Fudan Education Forum, 8(5), 018

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). University patenting: A comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 318–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frascati Manual. (2002). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, X., & Xiong, H. (2011). Open innovation in China: Policies and practices. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China, 2(3), 196–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K. S. (2006). Limits to leapfrogging in energy technologies? Evidence from the Chinese automobile industry. Energy Policy, 34(4), 383–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L. L., Welsh, R., Ervin, D., Lacy, W. B., & Biscotti, D. (2011). Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy, 40(7), 957–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37(1), 41–58

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, H., & Jaenicke, J. (2015). Testing the causal relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Germany: Crowding-out or reinforcement? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 512–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (2001). University-industry research partnerships in Australia: Extent, benefits and risks. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(3), 245–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henard, D. H., & Mcfadyen, M. A. (2010). The complementary roles of applied and basic research: A knowledge-based perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 503–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2013). Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(2), 109–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos, 64(4), 534–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercialisation in a transforming economy—Evidence from three universities in China. Technovation, 28(5), 298–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40(1), 6–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lian, Y. H., Hao, Y. U., & Zheng, Y. R. (2013). On the behavior characteristics of the execution subject in basic research. Studies in Science of Science, 31(5), 647–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F. C., Ma, R. K., & Jiang, N. (2011). Research on evolutionary paths of industry-university-research institute networks of patent collaboration based on the “985 Universities.” China Soft Science, 7, 178–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. Y., & Chen, Y. (2007). New pasteur’s quadrant: New paradigm of high-tech policies. Chinese Journal of Management, 4(3), 346–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., et al. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69(3), 575–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2013). Does government funding complement or substitute private research funding to universities? Research Policy, 42(1), 63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., Ramaciotti, L., & Rizzo, U. (2016). The complex relationship between academic engagement and research output: Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 1, 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Pinski, G., & Gee, H. H. (1976). Structure of the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(1), 25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2004). The challenge of building an effective innovation system for catch-up. Oxford Development Studies, 32(3), 365–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ooms, W., Werker, C., Caniëls, M. C., & Van Den Bosch, H. (2015). Research orientation and agglomeration: Can every region become a Silicon Valley? Technovation, 45(7), 78–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 202–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, M. (2008). The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy, 37(1), 29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. V. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ru, P., Zhi, Q., Zhang, F., Zhong, X., Li, J., & Su, J. (2012). Behind the development of technology: The transition of innovation modes in China’s wind turbine manufacturing industry. Energy Policy, 43(4), 58–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackman, J. D. (2013). The use of partial least squares path modeling and generalized structured component analysis in international business research: A literature review. International Journal of Management, 30(3), 78

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.

  • Sun, Z. J., & He, J. Q. (2006). An empirical analysis of university innovative activities in China. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 27(5), 89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011a). Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Research Policy, 40(1), 20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011b). Has the Bayh-dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy, 40(8), 1077–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W., Leeuwen, T. N. V., & Wijk, E. V. (2009). Benchmarking university-industry research cooperation worldwide: Performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world’s largest universities. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 769–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wold, S., Sjöström, M., & Eriksson, L. (2001). PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 58(2), 109–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2013). Do co-publications with industry lead to higher levels of university technology commercialization activity? Scientometrics, 97(2), 245–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational performance: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 392–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., & Wang, X. (2017). Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: Evidence from engineering academics in china. Scientometrics, 113(4), 257–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71473086, 71233003), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2016A030312005), and the Key Projects of Pholosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of education (Grant No. 12JZD042).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, No. 381, Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640, China

    Xia Fan & Zhou Yu

  2. School of Economics and Management, Hubei University of Technology, No. 28, Nanli Road, Wuhan, 430068, China

    Xiaowan Yang

Authors
  1. Xia Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaowan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhou Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaowan Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, X., Yang, X. & Yu, Z. Effect of basic research and applied research on the universities’ innovation capabilities: the moderating role of private research funding. Scientometrics 126, 5387–5411 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03998-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03998-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation