外文翻译---对于减少大学和产业合作障碍的因素的探究-其他专业

1、杭州电子科技大学毕业设计论文外文文献翻译毕业设计论文题目基于中小企业转型升级的产学研合作机制研究翻译题目对于减少大学和产业合作障碍的因素的探究学 院管理学院专 业工商管理姓 名班 级学 号指导教师沈奇泰松译文对于减少大学和产业合作障碍的因素的探究简介工业界和大学之间的合作有可能面临挑战。虽然大学驱动主要是创造新知识和教育，私人企业都集中在获取珍贵的知识，可以充分利用竞争优势达斯古普塔和戴维，1994。此外，大学日益促进管理人员的协作等方面，寻求创造有价值的知识产权IP，从而促进技术转移。因此，大学和产业之间的相互作用，正成为越来越多的学科来测量和管理的重要方式，同时，在合作交流的根底上产生更多

2、的形式，形成编码规那么。虽然这两个方面一直在公认的大学工业之间存在很热络，但由于调查研究相对较少，可以减轻这些障碍和自然因素参见halletal。，2001。通过政策的建立和支持你、我链接的重要性，对障碍的研究缺乏协作是有效的政策设计中的一个严重障碍。collaborin为了推动这方面的知识，本文考察两种类型的障碍：我们所描述的取向相关壁垒与那些在工业界和大学的取向差异有关；我们描述为：相关的障碍以及处理大学管理，交易有关的障碍。在本文探讨的机制中，通过这两个障碍，合作的三个重要元素的检查，可以降低企业遇到这些障碍物类型的影响的程度。首先，我们研究的影响现有工作的经验，对科研工程的假设上，经验

3、可以缓解合作障碍两种类型的大学。第二，我们检查是否之间的互动，和其合作大学中起重要作用的认知障碍的性质。在这种情况下，我们希望能表达他们的合作意愿，通过多种渠道将每作为制约更少的接受障碍。我们还调查是否相互作用性质、比照了教育为根底的合同，企业与大学大学合作伙伴的积极形式或负在影响不同类型的认知障碍。最后，我们评估如何在大学的合作伙伴的信任水平形状的工作与大学的壁垒、企业的感知nooteboom，2002；McEvily等人，2003。我们的方法提供的一个窗口，或者一些机制，可能会限制引起的深度和行业和大学之间的大学和商业之间的相互作用，合作质量面临重要挑战。虽然大学驱动主要是创造新知识和教育

4、，私人企业都集中在珍贵的知识，可以利用竞争优势达斯古普塔和戴维，1994。此外，大学日益积极的管理人员的协作等行业，寻求创造有价值的知识产权IP，促进技术转移。因此，大学和产业之间的相互作用，正成为越来越多的学科来测量和管理的重要途径。鼓励和控制公共和私人之间的知识相反的科学系统具有相对开放性，在私营部门创造知识的过程试图进行控制适当，企业知道为了获得竞争优势的经济价值Teece，1986。这种私有知识主要是封闭的，剩余的通过专利隐藏在企业或公开在一个有限的方式，主要用于获得暂时的垄断的目的艾伦，1984；达斯古普塔和戴维，1994。这是不是说企业知识边缘完全关闭：多种形式的知识交流和泄漏发生

5、在同一部门工作或者企业之间。企业完善的考虑数字出版学术和技术文件的信号的能力，或抵御别人努力控制特定领域的技术希克斯，1995；科伯恩和亨德森，1998。他们也可能参与开源软硬件工程来帮助降低自己的开发活动费用Von希佩尔和Von Krogh，2003，并有证据证明企业从事信息与竞争对手的战略交易希佩尔，1987。尽管这些例子具有开放性，但是RMS的知识创造活动的主要动力是个人获得的知识以及开放的外部参与者作为获得竞争优势的战略机Chesbrough，2006。鉴于这两种不同的知识系统的生产，你、我合作很有可能受到欺诈。由于合作伙伴之间的弱的态度取向。私人企业经常与大学的研究人员在研究或适当的

6、时机披露对研究结果的形式的主题。虽然研究人员可能希望获得优先权的信息披露，企业可能希望信息保密。正如布朗和杜古德2000，学者们希望创造性知识使他们的想法会被同行公认。而企业想要的知识是“粘性的，使他们能控制的资源不被他们的竞争对手使用。大学的研究人员也可能认为由他们的同龄人是有趣的和有价值的研究课题，而企业可能认为是为他们的客户的新产品和新效劳的开发主题和问题Nelson，2004是有价值的。这意味着每一方可能想了解在一个研究工程的问题可能是非常不同的输出类型各合作伙伴很感兴趣，也可能发散。冲突IP和大学管理过去30年来，经济行为者成长在大学，为自己的权利奋斗，也得到了重要的塑造。对大学技术

7、转移的上升TTO和越来越多的尝试，由大学捕捉正式的IP有科学努力自然深刻影响Shane，2004。这些努力已经使得在大学专利和高校局部形成新的商业热点，创造有价值的知识产权并利用它的金融价值获得创作的一个扩展亨德森等人，1998；莫厄和齐多尼斯，2002。为了鼓励ACA demics与工业的合作伙伴可以经常在不同的大学和国家采取许多不同的形式，。在英国，例如，政府推出了一系列举措，鼓励大学去捕捉和利用他们的IP兰伯特，2003；查普尔等人，2005。对于一些人而言，这种专注商业化，通过私人标准公共活动的实施破坏了科学的公共空间，削弱了开放科学机构Nelson，2004。对于其他人而言，大学的崛

8、起为一个经济演员创造，在过去一直是罕见的和独立的经济开展的一个新的电机Etzkowitz和Leydesdorff，2000。一些学者试图通过检查的专利申请在个体研究者的主要阳离子活性的影响程度的学术行为行业参与形成影Agrawal和亨德森，2002；Azoulay等人。，2007；考尔德里妮等人。，2007；费比诺和diminin，2021。这些研究说明，有之间的专利和科学性能的互补性，和那些个人认为做的最好的研究也成功地从事现实世界中的问题和创造商业价值罗瑟米尔等人。，2007。虽然这些发现在研究领域和在不同的国家不容易认知，他们认为在商业活动或与行业可以与性能研究具有互补性，从而进行学术交

9、流。除了这些结果在个人层面上，我们对大学关系对你、我合作的一般模式中能够增加商业取向的影响了解甚少。来自美国自贝赫-多尔法案说明，虽然大学专利水平从20世纪80年代初以来呈现上升趋势，但是这些专利的质量已随时间呈下降趋势莫厄等人。，2001。此外，增加大学专利活动开始于贝赫-多尔法案生效和高度本地化的几个工艺参领域之前。在欧洲的模式是相似的geuna和内斯塔，2006。目前还不清楚是否已经发生的变化在大学大学专利活动的直接后果是技术的变化或政策。此外，我们也不知道这些努力的前景有什么影响。在这方面的早期研究说明，大学专利的增长一直伴随着联合研究合作经济而放缓2007瓦伦丁和延森，人知识开发在多

10、个技术领域的步伐也是如此Fabrizio，2007。同样清楚的是，在某些情况下，由大学获取商业利益的研究导致了大学和工业合作伙伴之间的斜面分布控制佛罗里达州，1999；Shane和somaya，2007。这些分布式的控制往往由关于大学研究的商业潜力的不切实际的期望，导致他们高估IP克莱瑞斯等人。，2007。这些类型的欺诈与技术转化和大学管理可以将一个信号从侧门应变对合作，最终阻止企业从与大学合作。未来的研究和局限性了解感知障碍你、我合作很重要，因为它所揭示的问题和挑战，在你、我的合作过程中出现的大局部的你、我联系的研究依赖于二次信息的处理，在问题和挑战中参与合作。很少有人企业信息实际上参与了这

11、些协作功能。本研究着眼于可以减轻你、我合作的障碍的机制，并可能有助于建立政治关联，将缓解这些问题之前，他们破坏了可能是有益的合作。虽然我们从多个来源和时间提取信息，我们的研究主要集中于一个周期，这使得它关于因果关系的推论有所偏差。未来的研究应探讨在时间上的障碍，并检查，降低或提高团队合作的障碍因素。这可能是政策的干预，比方新的大学知识产权政策或大学拨款制度的变化，将有一个显受影响的知觉障碍。此外，虽然我们已经说明，在大学的协调问题，可能会导致交易相关障碍的增加，我们的研究没有显示意大利措施努力协调其活动，大学也不知道这种说法是正确的。像许多在这一领域的研究，我们把大学作为一个单元，但大学是丰富

12、的，复杂的组织中，充满着多样性甚至反对冲突。这是可能的，在未来的大学系统可能会更紧密集成，使在不同的渠道的行业更有效的参与和因此较低的交易有关的障碍的行业。未来的研究还应该检查对合作的成果壁垒的影响。虽然它是假定这些壁垒阻碍了有效的知识交换，我们没有关于如何感知障碍形状后续合作、演说的证据。例如，它是有用的知道一个坏的经验，大学合作阻止企业未来的合作与大学。我们还不知道如何事前IP协议的使用可能有助于降低下游冲突。大学和产业之间的合作伙伴或是否同意对自己创造的成功合作的障碍。这也为进一步研究的关键领域。在本文中，我们专注于企业曾参与正式的研究工程的样本，但许多企业并未着眼于这么长远，它们之间的

13、相互作用仅限于大学。对于大多数企业，你、我相互作用需要一个漫长的过程，通过学习一些小的步骤，如通过更广泛的参与使学生。我们只知道企业成长过程中，从非正式的，罕见的相互作用与大学的长期，持续的合作。这种进步的理解可能提供了巨大的潜力，形成有效的政策措施我支持你、合作。原文Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to universityindustry collaboration Johan Bruneel , Pablo DEste , Ammon SalterJ. Bruneel et al. / Research Polic

14、y 39 (2021) 858868IntroductionCollaboration between industry and universities faces signi-cant challenges. While universities are primarily driven to create new knowledge and to educate, private rms are focused on cap-turing valuable knowledge that can be leveraged for competitive advantage (Dasgupt

15、a and David, 1994). In addition, universities are becoming increasingly proactive managers of their collabora- tions with industry, seeking to create valuable Intellectual Property (IP) to foster technology transfer. Accordingly, more and more interactions between university and industry are becomin

16、g sub-ject to measurement and management, leading to more formal, contractual exchanges based on codied rules and regulations. Although both these aspects have been acknowledged in the liter- ature on universityindustry (UI) linkages, relatively few studies have investigated the nature of the barrie

17、rs and the factors that might mitigate them (see also Halletal.,2001). Given the central importance given by policy to building and supporting UI links,the lack of research on the obstacles to collaboration is a serious hindrance to the design of effective policy.In order to advance knowledge in thi

18、s area, this paper exam-ines two types of barriers:(i)those related to differences in the orientations of industry and universities, what we describe as orientation-related barriers; and (ii) barriers related to con- icts over IP,and dealing with university administration, what we describe as transa

19、ction-related barriers. This paper explores the mechanisms that can lower the degree to which rms encounter these types of barriers through an examination of three important elements that inuence the rms perception of these two sets of obstacles to collaboration. First, we explore the impact of the

20、rms prior experience of working on research projects with universities on the assumption that experience can ease both types of barriers to collaboration. Second, we examine whether the nature of the interaction between the rm and its university partner plays a role in the perception of barriers. In

21、 this case, we expect that rms that articulate their collaborations through multiple channels will per- ceive barriers as less constraining. We also investigate whether the nature of the interaction here we contrast education-based with contract-based forms of interaction that rms engage in with uni

22、- versity partners positively (or negatively) inuences the perception of different types of barriers. Finally, we assess how the level of trust in its university partners shapes the rms perception of the barriers to working with universities (Nooteboom, 2002; McEvily et al., 2003). Our approach prov

23、ides a window on some of the mecha- nisms that may limit the depth and quality of interactions between universities and businesses.The analysis is based on the statistical analysis of a large sur- vey of UK rms that have collaborated on publicly funded research projects, combined with data from reco

24、rds of prior involvement in research collaboration with universities. The analysis shows that prior experience of collaborative research lowers orientation- related barriers and that greater levels of trust reduce both types of barriers studied. We also nd that breadth of interaction diminishes the

25、orientation-related, but increases transaction-related barriers. We explore the implications of these ndings for research and pol- icy.Incentives and conicts between public and private knowledgeIn contrast to the relatively open nature of the science system, the process of knowledge creation in the

26、private sector is domi- nated by attempts to appropriate the economic value of what rms know in order to gain competitive advantage (Teece, 1986). Thisprivate knowledge is largely closed, remaining hidden within the rm or disclosed in a limited way through patents led primarily for the purposes of o

27、btaining temporary monopolies (Allen, 1984; Dasgupta and David, 1994). This is not to say that industry knowl- edge is completely closed: many forms of knowledge exchange and leakage occur between rms working in the same sector. A consid- erable number of rms publish academic and technical papers to

28、 signal their competencies or to defend against others attempts to control particular areas of technology (Hicks,1995; Cockburn and Henderson,1998). They may also participate in open source soft- ware projects to help lower the costs of their own development activities (von Hippel and von Krogh, 200

29、3), and there is some evi- dence that rms engage in strategic trading of information with competitors (von Hippel,1987). Despite these examples of open- ness, the primary motivation of rms knowledge creation activities is the appropriation of knowledge for private gain, and openness to external acto

30、rs is used as a strategic mechanism to gain advantage over competitors (Chesbrough, 2006).Given these two different systems of knowledge production, UI collaborations are likely to be plagued with conicts due to a weak attitudinal alignment between partners. Private rms often con- ict with universit

31、y researchers over attitudes towards the topics of research or the timing and form of disclosure of research results. While researchers may be keen to disclose information to gain pri- ority, rms may wish to keep secret or appropriate the information. To paraphrase Brown and Duguid (2000), academics

32、 wish to createleaky knowledge so that their ideas will be acknowledged by their peers while rms want the knowledge to be sticky so that they can control a resource that is not available to their competitors. University researchers are also likely to choose research topics that are perceived by thei

33、r peers to be interesting and valuable, while rms are likely to choose topics and problems that are perceived as being valuable for the development of new products and services for their customers (Nelson, 2004). This means that the problems that each party may want to explore within a research proj

34、ect may be very different and the types of outputs each partner is interested in may also diverge.Conicts over IP and university administrationThe growth over the past 30 years of universities as economic actors in their own right, has also been important in shaping the nature of the interaction bet

35、ween universities and rms. The rise of the university Technology Transfer Ofce (TTO) and the increasing attempts by universities to capture formal IP have had a profound impact on the nature of scientic efforts (Shane, 2004). These efforts have led to an expansion in university patenting and the cre

36、ation of a new commercial focus on the part of the universities to create valuable IP and exploit it for nancial gain (Henderson et al., 1998; Mowery and Ziedonis, 2002). Support designed to encourage aca- demics to engage with industrial partners can take many different forms and often varies acros

37、s universities and countries. In the UK, for example, the government has launched a range of initiatives to encourage universities to capture and exploit their IP (Lambert,2003; Chapple et al., 2005). For some, this focus on commercialization undermines the public commons of science, weakening the i

38、nstitutions of open science through the imposition of private norms on public activ- ities (Nelson, 2004). For others, the rise of the university as an economic actor creates a new motor for economic development that in the past has been rareed and separate (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Some sc

39、holars have attempted to measure the effect of engagement with industry on academic behaviour by examining the impact of patenting on individual researchers publi- cation activity (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002; Azoulay et al., 2007; Calderini et al., 2007; Fabrizio and DiMinin, 2021). These studies s

40、uggest that there are complementarities between patenting and scientic performance, and that those individuals that do the best research are also successful at engaging in real world problems and creating commercial value (Rothaermel et al., 2007). Although these ndings are not denitive and are liab

41、le to differ across research elds and across countries, they do suggest that academic engagement in commercial activities or with industry can have complementarities with research performance.Apart from these results at the individual level, we know little about the effects of increasing commercial-

42、orientation in universi-ties on general patterns of UI collaboration. Evidence from the US since the Bayh-Dole Act suggests that although the level of university patenting has increased since the early 1980s, the qual- ity of these patents has declined over time (Mowery et al., 2001). Moreover, incr

43、eased university patenting activity began before the Bayh-Dole Act came into force and is highly localized in a few tech-nological elds. The pattern is similar in Europe (Geuna and Nesta,2006). It is unclear whether the changes that have occurred in uni- versity patenting activity are a direct conse

44、quence of technological changes or of policy.Moreover, we do not know what effect these efforts at com-mercialization have had on the nature, frequency and types of UI collaboration. Early research in this area suggests that the increase in university patenting has been accompanied by a slowdown in

45、joint research collaborations (Valentin and Jensen,2007) and in the pace of private knowledge exploitation across a number of technological areas (Fabrizio, 2007). It is also clear that in some cases, attempts by universities to capture the commercial bene-ts from research have led to signicant dist

46、ributional conicts between universities and their industrial partners (Florida, 1999; Shane and Somaya, 2007). These distributional conicts are often accentuated by the unrealistic expectations held by universities about the commercial potential of university research (Clarysse et al., 2007), which

47、can result in their overvaluing IP. These types of conicts with TTOs and university administration may put a sig- nicant strain on collaborations, eventually deterring rms from collaborating with universities.Future research and limitationsUnderstanding the perceived barriers to UI collaboration is

48、important because it uncovers the problems and challenges that have emerged in the UI collaboration process. Much of the research on UI links relies on secondary information on the prob- lems and challenges involved in collaboration. There is very little information on those rms actually involved in

49、 these collabora- tions. The present study looks at the mechanisms that may mitigate the barriers to UI collaboration, and may help to set in place poli- cies that will alleviate the problems before they undermine what might be rewarding sets of collaborations.Although we draw information from multi

50、ple sources and over time, our study focuses on one period, which makes it difcult to draw inferences about the direction of causality. Future research should explore the barriers over time, and examine the factors that lower or raise the barriers to collaboration. It may be that pol- icy interventi

51、ons, such as new university IP policies or changes in university funding regimes, will have a signicant impact on the perceived barriers. In addition, although we have suggested that problems of coordination within the university may give rise to the increases of transaction-related barriers, our study does not explic- itly measure the efforts of university to coordinate its activities and therefore