Abstract
This paper presents work directed at capturing the entrepreneurial and collaborative activity of university researchers. The Triple Helix points to the emergence of the entrepreneurial university as well as to an increasing overlay of activities in universities, industry and government. This study explores ways in which patent-based metrics could be utilized in a Triple Helix context, and how hybrid indicators could be developed by combining patent with survey data. More specifically, it aims to develop indicators that connect technological inventiveness of university researchers to both funding organizations and users, as well as to entrepreneurial activities by academics. The paper develops a simplified model of the innovation process to benchmark the relevance of the indicators to the Triple Helix. An analysis of Finnish academic patents illustrates that patent data can already provide useful indicators but, on its own, cannot provide information about how academic patents are interconnected with government or industry through funding or utilization links. An exclusive analysis of patents can point to patent concentrations on certain universities, to inventors and assignees, or to potential gaps in translating applied science into industrial technology. However, the patent data had to be combined with an inventor survey in order to relate academic patents more to their Triple Helix environment. The survey indicated that most patented academic inventions are connected to (often publicly funded) scientific research by the inventors and tend to be utilized in large firms rather than in start-up companies founded by academic entrepreneurs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R. R. NELSON (Ed.), National Innovation Systems-A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1993.
B. A. LUNDVALL (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter: London, 1992.
A. GRANBERG, On the pursuit of systemic technology policies in an unstable environment: reflections on a Swedish case, Research Evaluation, 6 (1996) 143-157.
OECD, National Innovation Systems. Paris, 1997.
H. ETZKOWITZ, L. LeYDeSDORFF, The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'Mode 2'to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy, 29 (2000) 109-123.
H. ETZKOWITZ, A. WEBSTER, P. HEALeY (Eds), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, Albany: SUNY Press (1998).
J. SENKER, W. FAULKNER, L. VELHO, Science and technology knowledge flows between industrial and academic research: a comparative study. In: ETZKOWITZ, H., WEBSTER, A., HEALeY, P. (Eds), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, Albany: SUNY Press, 1998, pp. 111-132.
M. MEYER, Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems-an informetric perspective on future research on science-based innovation. Economic Systems Research, 14 (2002) 323-343.
M. MEYER, Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems, Scientometrics, 54 (2002) 193-212.
G. SIRILLI, Conceptualising and Measuring Technological Innovation, IDeA Report, STEP Group: Oslo, 1998.
L. LeYDeSDORFF, M. MEYER, The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations: a model for innovation in the 'knowledge-based' economy. Scientometrics, 58 (2003): 445-467.
M. GIBBONS, C. LIMOGES, H. NOWOTNY, S. SCHWARTZMAN, P. SCOTT, M. TROW, The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London, 1994.
L. LeYDeSDORFF, The Triple Helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 243-255.
H. ETZKOWITZ, A. WEBSTER, C. GEBHARDT, B. R. CANTISANO TERRA, The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 313-330.
M. BENNER, U. SANDSTRöM, Institutionalizing the Triple Helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 291-301.
B. MARTIN, The evolution of the university-a new triple helix or return to an earlier social contract? Presentation at the 4th International Triple Helix Conference, Copenhagen.
K. SMITH, (Ed.), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators-A Guide for Policy-Makers, IDeA Report 5, 1998.
F. NARIN, K. S. HAMILTON, D. OLIVASTRO, Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5 (1995) 183-187.
F. NARIN, K. S. HAMILTON, D. OLIVASTRO, The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26 (1997) 317-330.
S. BHATTACHARYA, H. KRETSCHMER, M. MEYER, Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58 (2003): 369-390.
M. MEYER, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 409-434.
R. J. W. TIJSSEN, R. K. BUTER, T. N. Van LeEUWEN, Technological relevance of science: An assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 389-412.
B. GODIN, The Relationship Between Science and Technology: A Bibliometric Analysis of Papers and Patents in Innovative Firms, unpublished D Phil thesis. University of Sussex, 1993.
B. GODIN, Research and the practice of publication in industries, Research Policy, 25 (1995) 587-606.
R. J. W. TIJSSEN, Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors, Research Policy, 31 (2002) 509-526.
M. MEYER, Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12 (2003): 17-27.
I. SCHILD, A Regional Patent Study to Investigate Inventive Activity in East Gothia. Tema-T Working Paper No.207, April 1999, Linköping University.
F. MEYER-KRAHMER, U. SCHMOCH, Chemistry, Information Technology, Biotechnology, and Production Technology: A Comparison of Linking Mechanisms in Four Fields. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, 1997.
M. MEYER, T. GOLOUBEVA, J. T. UTECHT, O. PERSSON, J. HONG, Tracing Knowledge Flows in the Finnish Innovation System. Tekes Technology Reports Series, Helsinki (forthcoming). To be downloaded at www.tekes.fi. See also www.knowledgeflows.com
P. DAVID, Second thoughts on American patenting: Lessons from America. Presentation, The Intellectual Property Forum 2003-The Commercial Exploitation of Academic Science: A contradiction? Oxford, 25 April.
B. MARTIN, A. SALTER, D. HICKS, K. PAVITT, J. SENKER, M. SHARP, N. Von TUNZELMANN, The Relationship between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance: A SPRU Review. HM Treasury, London, 1996.
M. MEYER, J. T. UTECHT, T. GOLOUBEVA, Free patent information as a resource for policy analysis. World Patent Information, 25 (2003) 223-231.
H. ETZKOWITZ, E. SCHULeR, M. MEYER, J. FELDMAN, The evolution of the incubator from support structure to regional inovation organizer. Paper presented at the 3rd International Triple Helix Conference, Rio de Janeiro, April 24-29, 2000.
L. G. SOETE, S. WYATT, The use of foreign patenting as an internationally comparable science and technology output indicator, Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 31-54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, M., Siniläinen, T. & Utecht, J.T. Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics 58, 321–350 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026240727851
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026240727851