مدل سازی عوامل موثر بر دستاوردهای همکاری های فناورانه: مورد کاوی همکاری های فناورانه نانوفناوری در ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 دانشگاه مالک اشتر

چکیده

در حوزه سیاست گذاری علم و فناوری، مطالعه‌های زیادی در مورد دستاوردهای همکاری های فناورانه صورت گرفته است. برخی از این مطالعه‌ها بر اثربخشی سیاست های علم و فناوری تمرکز کرده اند. در کشور ما نیز سیاست های علم و فناوری از طریق مشوق‌های متعدد بویژه در حوزه فناوری های نوظهور مانند نانو، از همکاری های فناورانه حمایت می کنند. با این وجود در اثر بخشی این سیاست ها تردید هایی وجود دارد.

در پژوهش حاضر تلاش شد تا عوامل موثر بر دستاوردهای همکاری های فناورانه بررسی شود. برای این منظور، پس از مرور ادبیات، عوامل موثر بر دستاوردهای همکاری های فناورانه در 4 دسته عوامل فردی، سازمانی، نهادی و تعاملات دسته بندی گردید. این مدل از طریق مصاحبه با 20 خبره حوزه سیاست گذاری علم و فناوری و نانو کشور صحه گذاری شد. سپس مدل پژوهش از طریق روش معادلات ساختاری و تحلیل مسیر مورد آزمون قرار گرفت. 72 پژوهشگری که در این پیمایش مشارکت داشتند بصورت تصادفی از پایگاه داده ای خبرگان نانوفناوری انتخاب شده بودند. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می دهد که عوامل مرتبط با ارتباطات و تعاملات شامل تعاملات فردی، تعاملات سازمانی، شبکه اجتماعی و شبکه های فناوری تاثیر مستقیم و مثبتی بر دستاوردهای همکاری‌های فناورانه دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Modeling Factors Affecting Technological Collaboration Achievements: A Case Study of Technological Collaboration in the Field of Nanotechnology in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abolfazl Bagheri 1
  • Alireza Bushehri 2
1 Allameh Tabataba’i University
2 Malekashtar University
چکیده [English]

Many studies have been carried out on technological collaboration achievements in the field of science and technology policy. Some focus on the effectiveness of science and technology policies. Iran's science and technology policies support technological collaboration by providing many incentives, especially for emerging technologies like nanotechnology. There are still some debates about whether these policies are effective or not. This study is conducted to investigate the factors affecting achievements of technological collaborations. Based on the related literature, the factors affecting technological collaborations are classified into four groups: individual, institutional, organizational, and interactional. The model is verified by interviewing 20 experts active in the field of science and technology policy and nanotechnology sector in Iran. After that, the model is examined by structural equations modeling and path analysis methods. All the 72 researchers participated in the survey are randomly selected from nanotechnology experts' database. The results show that the interactional factors, including social networks, individual interactions, organizational interactions and technological networks, directly and positively affect collaboration achievements.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Technological collaboration
  • Nanotechnology
  • Science and technology policy
  • Structural equations modeling
  • Iran nanotechnology initiative council
  1. Phan. Ph,” The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantative and qualitative Research in the us and the U.K” Working paper in economics, Rensselaer polytechnic Institute, 2006.
  2. Oinas, P.”The difference that space makes in organizational learning” 39th the Congress of the European  Regional Science Association, ,Dublin, Ireland, 1999.
  3. Valentin, E.M. Montoro-Sanchez, A. Guerras-Martin, L.A. “Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations” Research Policy, 33 (1), pp.17–40, 2004.
  4. Woolgar, L. “New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan” Research policy, 36(8), pp.1261–1274
  5. Cohen, W. Nelson, R. Walsh, J. “Links and impacts: the influenceof Public research on industrial R&D” Management Science, 48(1), pp.1–23, 2002.
  6. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning andInnovation”  Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),  pp. 128-152, 1990.
  7. Granstrand, O. Patel, P. Pavitt, K.“Multi-technology corporations:why they have distributed rather than distinctive core competencies” California Management Review 39 (4), pp.8–25, 1997.
  8. Ordover, J. ”A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), pp.43–46, 1991.
  9. Rasmussen et al, “Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge” Technovation, 26(4), pp.518-533, 2006.
  10. Lach and Schankerman, “Incentive and Invention in Universities” Rand Journal of Economics, 39(2), pp.403-433, 2003.
  11. Mansfield, E. and Lee, J.Y.  “The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support” Research Policy, 25(7) , pp. 1047–1058 , 1996.
  12. Collins, S. and Wakoh, H. “Universities and Technology Transfer in Japan: Recent Reforms in Historical Perspective” working paper, Social Science Research Network  Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=218379
  13. Saviotti, P.P. “On the dynamics of appropriability of tacit and codified knowledge” Research Policy, 26(7-8), pp.843–856, 1998.
  14. Fontana, R. et al, “Factors affecting university-industry R&D Project: The importance of searching screening and signaling” Research policy, 35(2) , pp.309-323, 2006.
  15. Panagopoulos, A. “Understanding when universities and firmsform RJVs: the importance of intellectual property protection” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), pp.1411–1433, 2003.
  16. Beise, M. Stahl, H. “Public research and industrial innovations in Germany” Research Policy, 28(4), pp.397–422, 1999.
  17. Caloghirou, Y. Tsakanikas, A. and Vonortas, N. S.“University-IndustryCooperation in the Context of the European Framework Programmes”, Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 26(1-2), pp. 153-161, 2001.
  18. Acosta, J. Modrego, A. ”Public financing of cooperative R&D projects in Spain: the Concerted Projects under the National R&D Plan” Research Policy, 30(4), pp.625–641, 2001.
  19. Laursen, K. Salter, A. “Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?” Research Policy, 33(8), pp.1201–1215, 2004.
  20. Arundel, A. Geuna, A. “Proximity and the use of public scienceby Innovative European firms” Economics of Innovation and NewTechnology, 13(6), pp.559–580, 2004.
  21. Schartinger, D. Rammera, C. Fischerc, M.M.  Fröhlicha, J. ”Knowledge interaction between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoralpotterns and determinants” Research policy, 31(3), pp. 303–328, 2002.
  22. Bayona, C. Garcia-Marco, T. Huerta, E. “Firms’ motivations for co-operative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms” Research Policy, 30 (8), pp.1289–1307, 2001.
  23. Mets, T. “Shaping Innovation paths of Technology based SME'S: Case of Estonian Biotechnology”26th Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Maribor, 2006.
  24. Lee, Y. S. “The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: an Empirical Assessment,”Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), pp. 111-133, 2000.
  25. D’Este, P. Patel, P. ”University–industry linkages in the UK: what arethe factors determining the variety of university researchers’ interactionswith industry? “ DRUID 10th Anniversary Summer Conference on Organizations, Networks and Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.
  26. Mohr, J.J. Spekman, R.E. “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques” Strategic Management Journa,  15 (2), pp.135–152, 1994.
  27. Dill, D.D. “University/industry research collaborations: an analysis of interorganizational relationships” R&D Management , 20 (2), pp.123–129, 1990.
  28. Geisler, E., Furino, A., Kiresuk, T.J. ”Factors in the success or failure of industry–university cooperative research centers” Interfaces, 20 (6), pp.99–109, 1990.
  29. Davenport, S. Davies, J. Grimes, C. “Collaborative research programmes: building trust from difference” Technovation, 19 (1), pp. 31–40, 1999a.
  30. Geisler, E. ”Intersector technology cooperation: hard myths, soft facts” Technovation, 17 (6), pp.309–320, 1997.
  31. Shane, S. “Academic Entrepreneurship” Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004.
  32. Zucker, L.G. Darby, M.R. Armstong, J.S. “Commercializing knowledge:university science, knowledge capture, and firm performancein biotechnology” Management Science, 48(1), pp.138–153, 2002.
  33. Bekkers, R. Freitas, I.M.B. “Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sector also matter?” Research policy, 37(10), pp. 1837–1853, 2008.
  34. Stephan, P.”The economics of science”Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (3), pp.1199–1235, 1996.
  35. Kotrlick, J.W. Bertlett II, J.E. Higgins, C.C. Williams, H.A. “Factors associated with research productivity of agricultural education faculty” Journal of Agricultural Education, 43 (3), pp.1–10, 2002.
  36. Azagra-Caro J.M. “What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction” Technovation, 27, pp.704–715, 2007.
  37. Sabatier, M. Carrere, M. Mangematin, V. “Profiles of academic activities and careers: does gender matter?” Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (3), pp.311–324, 2006.
  38. Bilimoria, D. Perry, S.R. Liang, X. Stoller, E.P. Higgins, P. Taylor, C. “How do female and male faculty members construct job satisfaction?” Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (3), pp.355–365. 2006.
  39. Escolano Zamorano, E. “Entre la discriminacio´ n y el me´ rito: Las profesoras en las universidades valencianas” Universitat de Vale`ncia, Valencia. 2006. cited in Joaquin & Azagra, 2007.
  40. Siegel, D. S. Waldman, D. A. Atwater, E. L, Link, A.”Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2), pp.115–142, 2004.
  41. Boschma, R. ” Culture of trust and regional development:an empirical analysis of the Third Italy” 39th the Congress of the European  Regional Science Association, ,Dublin, Ireland, 1999.
  42. Pavitt, K.”Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomyand a theory”  Research Policy, 13(6), pp.343–373, 1984.
  43. Bozeman, B. “Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory” Research policy, 29(4-5), pp. 627–655, 2000.
  44. Balconi, M. Laboranti, A,”University–industry interactions in applied research: the case of microelectronics” Research Policy, 35(10), pp.1616–1630, 2006.
  45. شوماخر،رندال ای ، ریچارد جی لومکس  "مقدمه ای بر مدل سازی معادله ساختاری" مترجم: قاسمی، وحید.انتشارات جامعه شناسان، 1388.

  46. Schiller, D. "The Potential to Upgrade the Thai Innovation System by  niversity-Industry Linkag” Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 14(2), pp.67-91, 2006.
  47. Radas, (2005) "Collaboration between Industry and Science: Motivation Factors, Collaboration Intensity and Collaboration Outcome", Economic Trends and Economic Policy, 102, pp. 60-80, 2005.
  48. Arvanitis, S. Sydow , N. Woerter, M. ”Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), pp.504-533, 2008.