Abstract
This study presents a hierarchical differential game between universities and scholars in order to examine innovation and research in higher education. In this stylized setup, scholars maximize the impact of their research, and universities maximize their market value. Innovations play a key role among the incentives given by the university to boost scholars’ productivity, as measured by academic publications and citations, which translates into scholars’ professional success. The scholars’ academic productivity increases university reputation and market value. Using Brazilian data, seemingly unrelated regression estimations suggest that the number of published papers grows with external funding and the percentage of faculty holding doctorate degrees, while the number of citations is associated with the presence of graduate programs and higher teaching quality. Market evaluation is, however, negatively affected by innovation, suggesting a lack of focus on patenting and technology transfer in Brazil.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kolympiris and Klein (2017).
As the Triple Helix Research Group (2018), hereafter THRG, indicates, the Triple Helix model in Etzkowitz (1993) and Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995) encompasses elements of precursor works by Lowe (1982) and Sábato and Mackenzie (1982). The THRG also points out that the Triple Helix approach encompasses not only the creative destruction that appears as a natural innovation dynamic (Schumpeter 1942), but also the creative renewal that arises within each of the three institutional spheres of university, industry and government, as well as at their intersections.
University productivity is defined by the sum of the research productivity of all of its faculty.
In seeking to understand how academic engagement differs from commercialization, which is often defined as intellectual property creation and academic entrepreneurship, Perkmannet al. (2013) develop a systematic review of research on the involvement of academic scientists in academic engagement. Their results suggest that there is a general lack of understanding about the consequences of academic engagement. As they conclude, “[e]vidence on the impact of these collaborations on other university activities, such as research and teaching, is scarce so it cannot be assumed that engagement activities are always beneficial and should therefore be promoted (Perkmann et al. 2013: 443).”.
A contemporaneous study by Cowan and Zinovyeva (2013) investigates whether the development of a university system affected local industry innovation in Italy between 1985 and 2000. They find that opening of new schools increased regional innovation activity within 5 years, thus suggesting that local industry innovation is mostly caused by the high quality scientific research brought to the region with new schools.
Relatedly, Kolympiris and Klein (2017) assert that university incubators are usually seen as effective mechanisms for transforming academic research into commercially useful innovations and value-adding startups.
There are various definitions of spin-offs in the literature, although Pirnay et al. (2003) argue that they typically refer to new firms (with a special legal status) emerging from research institutions that are aimed at commercialization of knowledge produced by academic activities.
Recall the definition of the university’s market value given by (7), where the parameter, v, multiplies the number of publications, defined as the marginal impact of publications on a university’s market value.
Data on universities are generally difficult to procure, thus Brazil presents a useful case study.
ENADE, or Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes, is a national exam that undergraduate students in Brazil take to evaluate the quality of undergraduate majors at universities.
Brazilian universities’ interaction with the private sector is bridged by public institutions (see Suzigan and Albuquerque 2011), such as the Oswaldo Cruz Institute and the Butantan Institute in health sciences, the Campinas Institute of Agronomy (IAC), Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) in agrarian sciences, Embraer (Brazilian Aeronautics Corporation) in aeronautics, and Petrobras (Petróleo Brasileiro SA) in oil and gas production.
References
Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Cross-national analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1247–1259.
Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalization of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27, 704–715.
Becker, W. E., Jr. (1975). The university professor as a utility maximizer and producer of learning, research and income. Journal of Human Resources, 10, 107–115.
Bergman, E. M. (2010). Knowledge links between European universities and firms: A review. Papers in Regional Science, 89, 311–333.
Besancenot, D., Faria, J. R., & Mixon, F. G., Jr. (2017). Academic research and the strategic interaction of scholars and editors: A two-stage game. International Game Theory Review, 19, 1–16.
Besancenot, D., Faria, J., & Vranceanu, R. (2009). Why business schools do so much research: A signaling explanation. Research Policy, 38, 1093–1101.
Borooah, V. K. (1994). Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management. Public Choice, 81, 101–124.
Bressan, A., & Shen, W. (2004). Semi-cooperative strategies for differential games. International Journal of Game Theory, 32, 561–593.
Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M., & Barczak, G. (2017). The changing bases of mutual trust formation in inter-organizational relationships: A dyadic study of university–industry research collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 74, 47–54.
Burns, T. R., & Gomolińska, A. (2000). The theory of socially embedded games: The mathematics of social relationships, rule complexes, and action modalities. Quality & Quantity, 34, 379–406.
Burns, T. R., Gomolinska, A., & Meeker, L. D. (2001). The theory of socially embedded games: Applications and extensions to open and closed games. Quality & Quantity, 35, 1–32.
Busdieker-Jesse, N., Nogueira, L., Onal, H., & Bullock, D. (2016). The economic impact of new technology adoption on the U.S. apple industry. Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 41, 549–569.
Carmichael, H. L. (1988). Incentives in academics: Why is there tenure? Journal of Political Economy, 96, 453–472.
Conceição, O., Fontes, M., & Calapez, T. (2012). The commercialisation decisions of research-based spinoff: Targeting the market for technologies. Technovation, 32, 43–56.
Coria, J., & Zhang, X.-B. (2015). State-dependent enforcement to foster the adoption of new technologies. Environmental & Resource Economics, 62, 359–381.
Cowan, R., & Zinovyeva, N. (2013). University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy, 42, 788–800.
Dastidar, K. G. (2015). Nature of competition and new technology adoption. Pacific Economic Review, 20, 696–732.
Del-Vecchio, R. R., Britto, J., & de Oliveira, B. F. (2014). Patterns of university–industry interactions in Brazil: an exploratory analysis using the instrumental of graph theory. Quality & Quantity, 48, 1867–1892.
Diánez-González, J., & Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2016). How management team composition affects academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of conflict. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 530–557.
Dorner, M., Fryges, H., & Schopen, K. (2017). Wages in high-tech start-ups—Do academic spin-offs pay a wagepremium? Research Policy, 46, 1–18.
Drivas, K., Lei, Z., & Wright, B. (2017). Academic patent licenses: Roadblocks or signposts for nonlicensee cumulative innovation? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 282–303.
El Ouardighi, F., Kogan, K., & Vranceanu, R. (2013). Publish or teach? Analysis of the professor’s optimal career path. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37, 1995–2009.
Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report, 6, 7–9.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix: University–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national system and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Faria, J. R. (2004). Some reflections on incentives for publication: The case of the CAPES’ list of economic journals. Economia Aplicada, 8, 791–816.
Faria, J. R. (2005). The games academics play: Editors versus authors. Bulletin of Economic Research, 57, 1–12.
Faria, J. R., Araujo, A. F., Jr., & Shikida, C. D. (2007). The international research of academic economists in Brazil: 1999–2006. Economia Aplicada, 11, 387–406.
Faria, J. R., & McAdam, P. (2015). Academic productivity before and after tenure: The case of the ‘specialist’. Oxford Economic Papers, 67, 291–309.
Faria, J. R., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Salter, S. P. (2012). An economic model of workplace mobbing in academe. Economics of Education Review, 31, 720–726.
Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2015). Research quality evaluation: Comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors. Quality & Quantity, 49, 155–165.
Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University–industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64, 85–98.
Freitas, I., Marques, R., & Silva, E. (2013). University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Research Policy, 42, 443–453.
Galati, F., Bigliardi, B., Petroni, A., & Marolla, G. (2017). Which factors are perceived as obstacles for the growth of Italian academic spin-offs? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 84–104.
Giudice, M., Carayannis, E., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 229–235.
Goel, R. K. (2006). The games academics play: Comment. Bulletin of Economic Research, 58, 19–23.
Gonzalez, S., & Lardon, A. (2018). Optimal deterrence of cooperation. International Journal of Game Theory, 47, 207–227.
Greene, W. H. (2017). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: Pearson.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 415–434.
Guimarães, B. (2011). Qualis as a measuring stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 31, 3–18.
Guo, L., Zhang, M., Dodgson, M., & Cai, H. (2017). An integrated indicator system for patent portfolios: Evidence from the telecommunication manufacturing industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 600–613.
Gupta, N., Weber, C., Peña, V., Shipp, S. S., & Healey, D. (2014). Innovation policies of Brazil, Institute for Defense Analyses. https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corpor+k,mjnate/Files/Publications/STPIPubs/2014/ida-p-5039.ashx.
Haddad, E., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Sidone, O. J. G. (2017). Produção científica e redes de colaboração dos docentes vinculados aos programas de pós-graduação em economia no Brasil. Estudos Econômicos, 47, 617–679.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Empirical analysis of technology transfer in Korean universities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1–26.
Horne, C., & Dutot, V. (2017). Challenges in technology transfer: An actor perspective in a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 285–301.
Horta, H., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). Skilled unemployment and the creation of academic spin-offs: a recession-push hypothesis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 798–817.
Kafouros, M., Wang, C., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhang, M. (2015). Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions. Research Policy, 44, 803–817.
Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36, 1–11.
Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2016). Social capital of academics and their engagement in technology and knowledge transfer. Science and Public Policy, 43, 646–659.
Kapoor, R., Karvonen, M., Mohan, A., & Kässi, T. (2016). Patent citations as determinants of grant and opposition: Case of European wind power industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 950–964.
Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 145–170.
Leal, R., Oliveira, J., & Soluri, A. (2003). Perfil da pesquisa em finanças no Brasil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43, 91–104.
Lee, S., Kim, W., Lee, H., & Jeon, J. (2016). Identifying the structure of knowledge networks in the US mobile ecosystems: Patent citation analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 411–434.
Lee, C., Kim, J., Noh, M., Woo, H.-G., & Gang, K. (2017). Patterns of technology life cycles: Stochastic analysis based on patent citations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 53–67.
Li, M., Nguyen, B., & Yu, X. (2016). Competition vs. collaboration in the generation and adoption of a sequence of new technologies: A game theory approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 348–379.
Lin, C., & Chang, C.-C. (2015). A patent-based study of the relationships among technological portfolio, ambidextrous innovation, and firm performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27, 1193–1211.
Lowe, C. U. (1982). The triple helix—NIH, industry, and the academic world. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 55, 239–246.
Mena-Chalco, J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., Lopes, F. M., & Cesar, R. M. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1424–1445.
Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47, 345–362.
Mixon, F. G., Jr. (1997). Team production in economics: A comment and extension. Labour Economics, 4, 185–191.
Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Hsing, Y. (1994). The determinants of out-of-state enrollments in higher education: A Tobit analysis. Economics of Education Review, 13, 329–335.
Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., & Toschi, L. (2016). Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: A cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1377–1405.
Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Toschi, L. (2017). Financing technology transfer: Assessment of university-oriented proof-of-concept programmes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 233–246.
Novaes, W. (2008). A pesquisa em economia no Brasil: uma avaliação empírica dos conflitos entre quantidade e qualidade. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 62, 467–495.
Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, B., Chelariu, C., & Johnson, W. (2016). The impact of social and contractual enforcement on reseller performance: The mediating role of coordination and inequity during adoption of a new technology. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31, 808–818.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.
Ponte, D., Mierzejewska, B., & Klein, S. (2017). The transformation of the academic publishing market: Multiple perspectives on innovation. Electronic Markets, 27, 97–100.
Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D., & Rudnik, P. (2017). The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 206–227.
Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernández-Esquinas, M., & Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, E. (2010). Measuring university–industry collaboration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 84, 649–667.
Renault, T., Mello, J., Fonseca, M., & Yates, S. (2016). A chip off the old block: Case studies of university influence on academic spin-offs. Science and Public Policy, 43, 594–600.
Roberts, D. E., & Malone, E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 17–48.
Rosendo-Rios, V., Ghauri, P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Empirical analysis of the key factors that can contribute to university–industry cooperational success from a relationship marketing approach. European Journal of International Management, 10, 647–677.
Sábato, J., & Mackenzie, M. (1982). La Producción de Tecnología: Autónoma o Transnacional. Geneva: Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales.
Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G., Souza, J., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 369–395.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
Silva, E. M. P. (2007). A experiência da colaboração do departamento de engenharia metalúrgica e de materiais da UFMG com empresas: Lições para a Lei da Inovação. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 6, 433–459.
Silva, S. (2009). Going parochial in the assessment of the Brazilian economics research output. Economics Bulletin, 29, 2832–2852.
Silva, E., & Segatto, A. (2017). Innovation in universities: Brazilian academic research in the period of 2001–2010. International Journal of Innovation, 5, 371–390.
Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2016). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation, 50(51), 25–40.
Sørensen, C., & Landau, J. (2015). Academic agility in digital innovation research: The case of mobile ICT publications within information systems 2000–2014. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 158–170.
Stigler, G. J. (1982). Merton on multiples, denied and affirmed. The economist as preacher and other essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Suzigan, W., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2011). The underestimated role of universities for the Brazilian system of innovation. Revista de Economia Política, 31, 3–30.
Tai, Y., & Ting, Y.-L. (2016). New aspect of technology adoption: A case study of students’ self-made English-learning video. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 663–675.
Triple Helix Research Group. (2018). The triple helix concept. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. https://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept.
Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 585–612.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version. The usual caveat applies.
Mathematical appendix
Mathematical appendix
The Hamiltonian, first order condition (FOC) and adjoint equation for the scholar are,
and
where λ is the shadow price of citations for the scholar. The university takes (7), (5) and the best-reply function of the scholar, given by (9) and (10). Its Hamiltonian, FOC and adjoint equations are,
and
Differentiating (21) with respect to time and inserting (22) yields the differential equation for the university’s innovations appearing as (8) in the main body of the text. Using (8), one can derive a differential equation for publications, which is obtained by differentiating (18) with respect to time and inserting (8) and (19).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Faria, J.R., Wanke, P.F., Ferreira, J.J. et al. Research and innovation in higher education: empirical evidence from research and patenting in Brazil. Scientometrics 116, 487–504 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2744-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2744-4
Keywords
- Innovation in higher education
- Scholarly publications and citations
- Teaching
- University management
- Seemingly unrelated regression
- Brazil