Skip to main content
Log in

Research and innovation in higher education: empirical evidence from research and patenting in Brazil

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For recent examples, see Renault et al. (2016), Diánez-González and Camelo-Ordaz (2016), Horta et al. (2016), Soetanto and Jack (2016), Meoli and Vismara (2016), Dorner et al. (2017) and Galati et al. (2017).

  2. See Audretsch and Caiazza (2016), Kalar and Antoncic (2016), Munari et al. (2016), Han and Kim (2016), Horne and Dutot (2017), Munari et al. (2017), Giudice et al. (2017) and Proskuryakova et al. (2017).

  3. Cowan and Zinovyeva (2013), Sørensen and Landau (2015), Kafouros et al. (2015), Ponte et al. (2017) and Kolympiris and Klein (2017).

  4. Sørensen and Landau (2015), Dastidar (2015), Coria and Zhang (2015), Li et al. (2016), Tai and Ting (2016), Busdieker-Jesse et al. (2016) and Osmonbekov et al. (2016).

  5. Lin and Chang (2015), Lee et al. (2016, 2017), Kapoor et al. (2016), Guo et al. (2017), Drivas et al. (2017).

  6. Kolympiris and Klein (2017).

  7. 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.

  8. University productivity is defined by the sum of the research productivity of all of its faculty.

  9. 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).”.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Recent studies also point to academic spin-offs as the most fruitful business alternative for promoting a commercial perspective vis-à-vis university research (Conceição et al. 2012; Diánez-González and Camelo-Ordaz 2016).

  14. 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.

  15. Data on universities are generally difficult to procure, thus Brazil presents a useful case study.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, E. M. (2010). Knowledge links between European universities and firms: A review. Papers in Regional Science, 89, 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Besancenot, D., Faria, J., & Vranceanu, R. (2009). Why business schools do so much research: A signaling explanation. Research Policy, 38, 1093–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borooah, V. K. (1994). Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management. Public Choice, 81, 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressan, A., & Shen, W. (2004). Semi-cooperative strategies for differential games. International Journal of Game Theory, 32, 561–593.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, H. L. (1988). Incentives in academics: Why is there tenure? Journal of Political Economy, 96, 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceição, O., Fontes, M., & Calapez, T. (2012). The commercialisation decisions of research-based spinoff: Targeting the market for technologies. Technovation, 32, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coria, J., & Zhang, X.-B. (2015). State-dependent enforcement to foster the adoption of new technologies. Environmental & Resource Economics, 62, 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Zinovyeva, N. (2013). University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy, 42, 788–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dastidar, K. G. (2015). Nature of competition and new technology adoption. Pacific Economic Review, 20, 696–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report, 6, 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix: University–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R. (2004). Some reflections on incentives for publication: The case of the CAPES’ list of economic journals. Economia Aplicada, 8, 791–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R. (2005). The games academics play: Editors versus authors. Bulletin of Economic Research, 57, 1–12.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R., & McAdam, P. (2015). Academic productivity before and after tenure: The case of the ‘specialist’. Oxford Economic Papers, 67, 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2015). Research quality evaluation: Comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors. Quality & Quantity, 49, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K. (2006). The games academics play: Comment. Bulletin of Economic Research, 58, 19–23.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, S., & Lardon, A. (2018). Optimal deterrence of cooperation. International Journal of Game Theory, 47, 207–227.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2017). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães, B. (2011). Qualis as a measuring stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 31, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Empirical analysis of technology transfer in Korean universities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, C., & Dutot, V. (2017). Challenges in technology transfer: An actor perspective in a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2016). Social capital of academics and their engagement in technology and knowledge transfer. Science and Public Policy, 43, 646–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 145–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leal, R., Oliveira, J., & Soluri, A. (2003). Perfil da pesquisa em finanças no Brasil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43, 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, C. U. (1982). The triple helix—NIH, industry, and the academic world. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 55, 239–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr. (1997). Team production in economics: A comment and extension. Labour Economics, 4, 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponte, D., Mierzejewska, B., & Klein, S. (2017). The transformation of the academic publishing market: Multiple perspectives on innovation. Electronic Markets, 27, 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sábato, J., & Mackenzie, M. (1982). La Producción de Tecnología: Autónoma o Transnacional. Geneva: Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, S. (2009). Going parochial in the assessment of the Brazilian economics research output. Economics Bulletin, 29, 2832–2852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, E., & Segatto, A. (2017). Innovation in universities: Brazilian academic research in the period of 2001–2010. International Journal of Innovation, 5, 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1982). Merton on multiples, denied and affirmed. The economist as preacher and other essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzigan, W., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2011). The underestimated role of universities for the Brazilian system of innovation. Revista de Economia Política, 31, 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triple Helix Research Group. (2018). The triple helix concept. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. https://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franklin G. Mixon Jr..

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,

$$H_{s} = aIP - \frac{b}{2}P^{2} + \delta C + \lambda [\rho P + mS - \sigma C + \varOmega ],$$
(17)
$$\frac{{{\text{d}}H_{\text{s}} }}{{{\text{d}}P}} = aI - bP + \lambda \rho = 0 \Rightarrow P = \frac{aI + \lambda \rho }{b},$$
(18)

and

$$\dot{\lambda}- r\lambda = - \frac{{{\text{d}}H_{s} }}{{{\text{d}}C}} \Rightarrow \dot{\lambda} = \lambda (r + \sigma ) - \delta ,$$
(19)

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,

$$H_{U} = XI - 0.5I^{2} + v\left( {\frac{aI + \lambda \rho }{b}} \right) + n\left( {1 - \frac{aI + \lambda \rho }{b}} \right) + \mu_{1} \left[ {\rho \left( {\frac{aI + \lambda \rho }{b}} \right) + mS - \sigma C + \varOmega } \right] + \mu_{2} \left[ {\lambda (r + \sigma ) - \delta } \right],$$
(20)
$$\frac{{{\text{d}}H_{P} }}{{{\text{d}}I}} = X - I + b^{ - 1} (v - n)a + \mu_{1} b^{ - 1} \rho a = 0 \Rightarrow I = X + b^{ - 1} (v - n + \mu_{1} \rho )a,$$
(21)
$$\dot{\mu}_{1} - \theta \mu_{1} = - \frac{{{\text{d}}H_{P} }}{{{\text{d}}C}} \Rightarrow \dot{\mu}_{1} = (\theta + \sigma )\mu_{1} ,$$
(22)

and

$$\dot{\mu}_{2} - \theta \mu_{2} = - \frac{{{\text{d}}H_{U} }}{{{\text{d}}\lambda }} \Rightarrow \dot{\mu}_{2} = \theta \mu_{2} - [b^{ - 1} (v - n + \mu_{1} \rho )\rho + \mu_{2} (r + \sigma )].$$
(23)

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2744-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation