Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals?
Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.021
复制
发表时间：
2006-12
期刊：
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
C. Langford;Jeremy Hall;P. Josty;Stelvia Matos;Astrid Jacobson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Langford;Jeremy Hall;P. Josty;Stelvia Matos;Astrid Jacobson
本文分析了加拿大政府鼓励和衡量大学知识商业化以促进社会经济发展的尝试。大学被认为是主要的、未得到充分利用的知识宝库。在这里，知识可以跨越机构边界转移的路径，以及各种投入和产出/成果的措施被确定。现有的加拿大数据进行了评估，并提出了一个机构的详细的定量和定性研究。出现了三个关键问题：（1）目前的替代指标侧重于许可和附带利益，而没有衡量知识流动的几个重要途径;（2）大多数现成的替代指标都是从汇总数据中得出的，不足以充分反映创新的特质和途径依赖性;（3）如果“三重螺旋”中行动者的目标和激励措施被指标扭曲或误解，大学和公司可能会从事适得其反的活动。我们提出了可能有助于防止一个可衡量的层面成为政策驱动因素而损害总体目标的额外指标。
This paper analyzes Canadian Government attempts to encourage and measure commercialization of university knowledge for socio-economic improvement. Universities are regarded as major, insufficiently exploited, repositories of knowledge. Here, paths by which knowledge can be transferred across institutional boundaries, and various input and output/outcome measures are identified. Available Canadian data are evaluated and a detailed quantitative and qualitative study of one institution is presented. Three key issues emerge: (1) current proxies focus on licensing and spin-off, and do not measure several important paths of knowledge flow; (2) most readily available proxies are derived from aggregate data and are inadequate to fully reflect the idiosyncratic and path-dependent nature of innovation; (3) if the goals and incentives of the actors in the ‘triple helix’ are skewed or misinterpreted by indicators, universities and firms may engage in counterproductive activities. We propose additional indicators that might help to prevent one measurable dimension from becoming the policy driver to the detriment of the overall goals.