Universities in National Innovation Systems

By David C. Mowery, Bhaven N. Sampat. 2006

697 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8628ce800d3918fdec2bc3a495518153104f4e84

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Mike Wright
2. Gerard J. Tellis
3. Jaideep Prabhu
4. Rajesh Chandy
5. Philippe Mustar
6. Fulvio Castellacci
7. Massimo G. Colombo
8. Elvira Uyarra

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Yuzhuo Cai
2. Mike Wright
3. Massimo G. Colombo
4. Philippe Mustar
5. Jaideep Prabhu
6. Gerard J. Tellis
7. Fulvio Castellacci
8. Rajesh Chandy

In Strategy and Management

1. Jaideep Prabhu
2. Yuzhuo Cai
3. Gerard J. Tellis
4. Rajesh Chandy
5. Elvira Uyarra
6. Massimo G. Colombo
7. Fulvio Castellacci
8. Philippe Mustar

Citations in the corpus

• Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship (2010, background): “Although they have attracted the attention of international agencies such as the OECD and the EU, these approaches have been critiqued because of their high level of generality and because they lack an empirical basis of support at the level of research institutions (Mowery and Sampat 2005; Grossett”
• Different Modes of Innovation and the Challenge of Connecting Universities and Industry: Case Studies of Two Regional Industries in Norway (2010, background): “Universities are increasingly seen as key sources of fundamental knowledge, innovation and economic growth (Mowery & Sampat, 2005 ).”
• Radical Innovation across Nations: The Preeminence of Corporate Culture (2009, background): “Cross-disciplinary frameworks that exist tend to be tailored to fit the unique circumstances of individual industries (e.g., Bartholomew 1997) or individual nations (e.g., Mowery and Rosenberg 1993) and are not easily applied beyond their original contexts (see Furman, Porter, and Stern 2002; Nelson”
• Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit (2012, background): “…and Somogyi, 2011); these usually vary according to the field of knowledge and technology, and by the sector (Cohen, et al., 2002; Schartinger, et al., 2002; Laursen and Salter, 2004; Mowery and Sampat, 2005; Hanel and St-Pierre, 2006; Fontana, et al., 2006; Intarakumnerd and Schiller, 2009).”
• Intellectual capital in universities (2006, background): “These analytical frameworks become crucial for conceptualising the current role of universities within the innovation process and emphasise the importance of strong links between universities and other institutional actors in OECD economies ( Movery and Sampat, 2004”
• Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth (2007, background): “Secondly, interactions between innovative firms and the science system constitute an important external source of opportunities, particularly in some advanced industries where the process of knowledge creation is closely related to scientific advances (Mowery and Sampat, 2005).”
• Advances and Challenges in Innovation Studies (2005, background): “According to Mowery and Sampat (2005), there is so far no unambiguous evidence of increased economic growth resulting from the Bayh-Dole act, perhaps with the only exception of the biomedical sector.”
• Conceptualizing the Regional Roles of Universities, Implications and Contradictions (2010, background): “Furthermore, the triple helix seems to overstate the extent to which these activities take place throughout universities, as opposed to being confined to a few fields of academic research (Mowery & Sampat, 2005), and a few locations (notably MIT) (Cooke, 2005; Gunasekara, 2006a).”