Beyond formal university technology transfer: innovative pathways for knowledge exchange

The Journal of Technology Transfer - University technology transfer is often associated with formal transmission of science-based inventions, for instance through the licensing of patented...     

Technology transfer offices as providers of science and technology entrepreneurship education

The Journal of Technology Transfer - Universities show an increasing commitment to stimulate science- and technology-based entrepreneurship with the aim of contributing to societal and economic...     

Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments

University–industry technology transfer (TT) has become increasingly institutionalized and is supported by numerous reforms and initiatives at the national, regional and university levels. Most countries have implemented a policy mix involving a range of instruments to support the commercialization of research. Still, there is no systematic evidence indicating why the mix of policy instruments differs between countries. This study offers a novel cross-national investigation of the policy mix emphasizing the level of centralization and decentralization of policy instruments. We map and analyze two specific types of public instruments aimed at addressing the so-called funding gap in TT: proof of concept programs (POCs) and university-oriented seed funds (USFs). Based on a survey across 21 European countries, we find that such instruments are widely used but are organized differently depending on the level of implementation of TT practices in the country and the specific type of instrument considered. More precisely, we find a U-shaped relationship between the use of centralized gap-funding instruments and the country’s implementation of TT practices. Moreover, the type of gap-funding instrument (POC or USF) moderates this relationship. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest that the policy mix of gap-funding instruments evolve with the maturity of the national TT infrastructure.     

Just 'Cause You're Smarter than Me Doesn't Give You a Right to Tell Me What to Do: Legitimate Authority and the Normal Justification Thesis

Joseph Raz's famous theory of authority is grounded in threeclaims about the nature and justification of authority. Accordingto the Preemption Thesis, authoritative directives purport toreplace the subject's judgments about what she should do. Accordingto the Dependence Thesis, authoritative directives should bebased on reasons that actually apply to the subjects of thedirective. According to the Normal Justification Thesis (NJT),authority is justified to the extent that subjects are morelikely to comply with right reason by following the authority'sdirectives than by following their own judgments about whatright reason requires.¹ In this article, I consider a number of ways in which NJT mightbe construed as a justification for authority. First, I evaluateNJT construed as a principle that would provide a practicaljustification for an individual to accept or recognize a particularperson or persons as a preemptive authority. Second, I evaluateNJT construed as a principle that describes the conditions underwhich a state or legal system is morally legitimate. I arguethat NJT is true under none of these interpretations.²     

The Instantiation Thesis and Raz's Critique of Inclusive Positivism

Law and Philosophy -     

Parallel business models and the innovativeness of research-based spin-off ventures

Research-Based Spin-Offs (RBSOs) are seen as a potential mechanism for technology transfer by commercializing academic research and thereby stimulate industrial innovation. RBSOs are heterogeneous, however, and in this paper we investigate how the use of different business models by RBSOs is related to their innovativeness. We use a sample of 82 young RBSOs from Norway to explore typologies of RBSOs developed in earlier studies. Our findings show that some types of business models are associated with higher innovativeness than others. The typology approach has portrayed RBSOs as if they pursue only one business model. In this paper we challenge this assumption by drawing on evolutionary theory and the idea that firms may follow several business models in parallel. Our empirical findings suggest that most RBSOs pursue several business models in parallel and that such firms are more innovative. This study extends the typology approach within the academic entrepreneurship literature by showing that some business models are associated with higher innovativeness than others and that firms pursuing several business models at the same time may be particularly important for the commercialization of academic research. These findings have important implications for research and practise.