The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach
Open accessAbstract
The literature on university–industry (U–I) links has revealed many barriers that impede U–I technology transfer. A growing number of intermediary organizations, such as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), University Incubators (UIs), and Collaborative Research Centres (CRCs) have been established to mitigate such barriers. While the activities and effects of such intermediaries are frequently studied, conceptual understandings of how these organizations facilitate technology transfer are lacking. Our case study of nine Italian intermediary organizations shows that different types of intermediary organizations address the same fundamental issue of bridging the different logics of academia and industry in different ways. Based on a proximity approach, we develop a theoretical framework explaining how intermediary organizations can reduce cognitive, geographical, organizational, and social distance in U–I collaborations. Intermediary organizations address different proximity dimensions depending on the prior experience of academic and industrial actors and the nature of the knowledge that is transferred. In particular, TTOs focus more on improving cognitive and organizational dimensions, whereas UIs and CRCs attempt to reduce social and geographical distance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,249
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4 · Cited by 8,559
(1993) · Cited by 7,856
Męcfal, S. (2012) · University of Lodz Repository (University of Łódź) · Cited by 6,617
Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment
Boschma, R. (2005) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887 · Cited by 6,055
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/210361 · Cited by 3,232
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., et al. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007 · Cited by 2,552
Self-citationToward a new economics of science
Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1 · Cited by 2,448
Cited by
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems
Malecki, E. J. (2018) · Geography Compass · doi:10.1111/gec3.12359 · Cited by 784
Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed
O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-022-09932-2 · Cited by 265
Rossoni, A. L., de Vasconcellos, E. P. G., & de Castilho Rossoni, R. L. (2024) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-023-00349-1 · Cited by 258
A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research
Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9491-6 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R.
- Venue
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 114
- Pages
- 86-102
- ISSN
- 0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2439291928
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 42.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.