Innovation, Science and Growth

Important! This course is cancelled due to few registratins.

This course is organized by NTNU. The course is titled “Innovation, Science and Growth”(previously Innovation Management).


Course responsible Professor Roger Sørheim, NTNU
Professor Keld Laursen, Copenhagen Business School and NTNU (KL)
Professor (mso) Christoph Grimpe, Copenhagen Business School (CG)
Professor Einar Rasmussen, Nord University Business School (ER)
Professor Karl Wennberg, University of Linköping (KW)
Associate Professor Marius Tuft Mathisen, NTNU (MTM)

Course Purpose and Content

Universities are organizations dedicated to the production of reliable new knowledge. Frequently, this knowledge provides the foundation of technological innovation and eventually economic growth and development. An important mechanism for achieving practical and meaningful applications based on scientific knowledge is science commercialization, defined as the process of converting scientific knowledge into new or improved products or services that are available in the market. Examples of science commercialization pathways range from the creation of a start-up company based on scientific research, to the licensing of a scientific invention to an established firm, to product or process innovation. At the same time, knowledge is a good with rather unusual economic properties, which raises substantial incentive problems. With the system of Open Science, a specific set of institutions has evolved to address these issues. However, in recent years the institutions of Open Science have increasingly been scrutinized. How can collaboration between universities and industry be encouraged? How reliable are the results of scientific research? And how do increasing competition and the commercialization of findings affect Open Science?

Furthermore, how can scientific knowledge produced by universities be commercialized? The transfer of science and technology into application also occurs through many other pathways, often involving entrepreneurial behavior among scientists and students. This las of the course will address the role of entrepreneurship related to: i) developing a better understanding of the science commercialization phenomenon, ii) using science commercialization as context for theory development, and iii) making methodological progress in the study of science commercialization.

This course will review some of the key theoretical and empirical contributions to the academic field of science and science-industry interaction to find answers to these questions.


Monday, 22 January 2018

09.00-11.00 Session 1: The science-industry relationship (CG (+KL))
Kline, S., Rosenberg, N. 1986. An Overview of Innovation. In R. Landau, N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Pavitt, K. 1991. What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful? Research Policy, 20: 109-119.

Additional reading
Nelson, RR. 1959. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy 67: 297-306.
Nelson, RR. 2003. On the Uneven Evolution of Human Know-How. Research Policy 32(6): 909-922.
Dasgupta, P., David, P.A. 1994. Toward a new economics of science, Research Policy, 23: 487-521.

11.00-14.00 Session 2: Firms’ benefits from working with scientists and universities (lunch break, 12.00-13.00) (KL)
Gibbons, M., Johnston, R. 1974. The Roles of Science in Technological Innovation. Research Policy 3: 220-2
Fleming, L., Sorenson, O. 2004. Science as a Map in Technological Search. Strategic Management Journal 25(8-9): 909-928.
Laursen, K, Salter, AJ. 2004. Searching Low and High: Why Do Firms Cite Universities as a Source of Innovation? Research Policy 33(8): 1201-1215.

Additional reading
Arora, A., Gambardella, A. 1994. Evaluating Technological Information and Utilizing It: Scientific Knowledge, Technological Capability, and External Linkages in Biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 24(1): 91-114.

14.00-16.00 Workshop I (Scientists’ preferences)
To be discussed in groups (it is of central importance that these two papers
have been read before the workshop):

Stern, S. 2004. Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists? Management Science 50, 835-853.
Sauermann, H., Stephan, P. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science, Organization Science 24 (3), 889-909.

For each article think about the following questions:
– What are is central claim made in the paper?
– Which previous research does the paper build on?
– Which central theoretical perspectives are applied — how relevant are these perspectives in your opinion and why?
– What do you think about the empirical setup of the paper?
– What are the general weaknesses of the paper?
– What are the general strengths of the paper?

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

09.00-11.00 Session 3: Scientists’ benefits and barriers to engagement (CG)
D’Este, P., Patel, P. 2007. University–Industry Linkages in the UK: What Are the Factors Underlying the Variety of Interactions with Industry? Research Policy 36(9): 1295-1313.
Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D’Este, R. Fini, A. Geuna, R. Grimaldi, A. Hughes, S. Krabel, M. Kitson, P. Llerena, F. Lissoni, A. Salter, M. Sobrero. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations, Research Policy 42(2): 423-442.

Additional reading
Edler, J., Fier, H., Grimpe, C. 2011. International Scientist Mobility and the Locus of Knowledge and Technology Transfer. Research Policy 40(6): 791-805. D’Este, P., Perkmann, M. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations, Journal of Technology Transfer 36 (3), 316-339.

11.00-14.00 Session 4: Institutional logics and absorptive capacity (lunch break, 12.00- 13.00) (KL)
Gittelman, M., Kogut, B. 2003. Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logit of Citation Patterns. Management Science 49(4): 366–382.
Cockburn, IM., Henderson, RM. 1998. Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics 46(2): 157-182.

Additional reading
Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., Stern, S. 2016. Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(1): 212-252.
Jensen, RA., Thursby, JG., Thursby, MC. 2003. Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions: ‘The Best We Can Do with the S**T We Get to Work With’. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21(9): 1271-1300.

14.00-16.00 Workshop II (Commercialization of academic research)

To be discussed in groups (it is of central importance that these two papers
have been read before the workshop):

Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. 2008. Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level, Organization Science, 19(1): 69-89.
Owen-Smith, J. 2005. Dockets, Deals, and Sagas: Commensuration and the Rationalization of Experience in University Licensing. Social Studies of Science 35(1): 69-97.

For each article think about the following questions:
– What are is central claim made in the paper?
– Which previous research does the paper build on?
– Which central theoretical perspectives are applied — how relevant are these perspectives in your opinion and why?
– What do you think about the empirical setup of the paper?
– What are the general weaknesses of the paper?
– What are the general strengths of the paper?

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

09.00-12.00 Session 5: Localization of knowledge spillovers from academic science (KL)
Laursen, K., Salter, AJ., Reichstein, T. 2011. Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University–Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies 45(4): 507-523.
D’Este, P., Guy, F., Iammarino, S. 2012. Shaping the formation of university– industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography 13 (4), 537-558.

Additional reading
Jaffe, A. 1989. Real Effects of Academic Research. American Economic Review, 79(5): 957-970.
Gittelman, M. 2007. Does Geography Matter for Science-Based Firms? Epistemic Communities and the Geography of Research and Patenting in Biotechnology. Organization Science 18(4): 724–741.
Alcácer, J., Chung, W. 2007. Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers. Management Science 53(5): 760-776.

12.00-13.00: Lunch

13.00-15.30 Session 6: The dark sides of science-industry interaction (CG)

Verspagen, B. 2006. University Research, Intellectual Property Rights and European Innovation Systems. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20: 607-632. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., Toole, AA. 2015. Delay and Secrecy: Does Industry Sponsorship Jeopardize Disclosure of Academic Research? Industrial and Corporate Change 24: 251-279.

Additional reading
Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., Pellens, M. 2015. Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University. Journal of Technology Transfer 40(6): 1050-1063.
Nelson, AJ. 2016. How to Share “a Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure. Organization Science 27(2): 265-285.

Thursday, 25 January 2018

09.00-11.00 Session 7: Science commercialization – from determinants to impacts (ER)

Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer 40 (5), 782-799.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? British Journal of Management 26 (4), 582-595.
Perkmann et al. (2013) – also used on 23rd January
Shane, S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science 11 (4), 448-469.
Li, J. F., & Garnsey, E. (2014). Policy-driven ecosystems for new vaccine development. Technovation 34 (12), 762-772.

11.00-14.00 Session 8: The growth of university spin-offs (lunch 12.00-13.00) (MTM)

Fini, R., Fu, K., Mathisen, M. T., Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2017). Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study. Small Business Economics 48 (2), 361-391.
Rasmussen, E., & Mathisen, M. T. (2016). Science-based entrepreneurial firms as real options: Assessing the outcomes of the Norwegian firm population from 1995 to 2012. . In R. Fini & R. Grimaldi (Eds.), Process approach to academic entrepreneurship: evidence from the globe: World Scientific Publishing.

14.00-16.00 Workshop 1: Finding a good research question in the intersection between phenomenon, theory and methods (ER/MTM)

Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 383-409.
Pitsakis, K., Souitaris, V., & Nicolaou, N. (2015). The Peripheral Halo Effect: Do Academic Spinoffs Influence Universities’ Research Income? Journal of Management Studies 52 (3), 321-353.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Longitudinal Study of University Spin-Off Venture Emergence. Journal of Management Studies 48 (6), 1314-1345.
Bercovitz & Feldman (2008) – also used on 23rd January
George, G., Osinga, E. C., Lavie, D., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Big Data and Data Science Methods for Management Research. Academy of Management Journal 59 (5), 1493-1507.

Friday, 26 January 2018

09.00-11.00 Session 9: Sociological or social psychological perspectives on academic entrepreneurship (KW)

Lam, A. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354-1368.

11.00-12.00 Session 4: Student entrepreneurship (KW+ER)

12.00-13.00 Lunch

13.00-16.00 Workshop 2: Pitching and Discussion of students research ideas

Potential additional reading:
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407-429.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., and Wright, M. 2015. The transformation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial competencies for university spin-offs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(7-8), 430-457.


Please send Birte, NORSI Project Corrdinator an email (


Please organize your own travel (economy) and hotel.

NORSI Reimbursement/refund

As this course is considered a NORSI course all travel expenses etc. will be covered for NORSI students. After completion of the course (handed in paper), please mail in all your tickets and receipts (originals or scanned) to Birte Horn-Hanssen, the NORSI Project Coordinator. However, if your “home” institution has temporarily covered your travel costs, your institution may send BI/Birte and invoice (faktura) asking NORSI to cover your outstanding travel costs with copies of your receipts. (Norwegian: Hvis ditt lokal studiested legger ut for deg så kan det lokale studiestedet fakturerer BI totalt for alle sine NORSIstudenter med en totalsum for reisekostnadene. Legg ved kopi av vedlegg). Please ask your institution to specify who (your name) the invoice/travel refund is for and write NORSI on the invoice. If you have any questions about this, please email Birte Horn-Hanssen.

Date & Location