企业开放科学行为研究:理论构建与实证测量
|
摘要
传统的观点认为企业通常会采取保密、专利、复杂性等独占机制来保护其创新知识。然而,令人惊奇的是,在开放式创新和基于科学创新的大背景下,企业越来越频繁地采取开放科学的行为,自愿披露创新知识而非保密。针对这一有趣的现象,本文在企业开放科学行为理论内涵界定的基础上,重点从内部研究活动、产学合作、专利独占、R&D人员4个维度,针对我国企业的开放科学行为进行了计量分析,研究发现:(1)企业在科学开放性决策时,基础研究、应用研究、专利独占、产学合作、博士比例具有显著的影响作用,特别是博士比例的影响最为显著,而专利独占和R&D人员规模的影响均不显著。(2)企业在科学论文披露决策时,基础研究、应用研究、专利独占、博士比例的影响比较显著,而产学合作的影响却并不显著,这意味着产学合作中企业更关注的是技术难题的解决,而不是论文的发表。(3)专利独占对科学开放性的决策影响并不显著,但科学披露和专利独占之间却具有显著的互补性关系。本研究揭示了企业开放科学行为决策的重要影响因素与规律,进一步丰富了开放创新和基于科学创新的理论,对提升我国企业的科学能力提供了重要的理论依据与实践指导。
The traditional theory considers that firms usually using appropriability regime(i.e. Secrecy, patents, complexity etc.) to protect proprietary innovative knowledge. Surprisingly, firms are increasingly adopting open science behavior in the context of open innovation and scientific innovation. Our paper systematically studies the theoretical connotation of firm's open science behavior. We conduct an econometric analysis with firm-level data from China, reveals the influencing factors of firms open science,from the four dimensions of internal research activities, industry and university cooperation, patent exclusivity and R&D personnel.We found that(1) Basic research, applied research, patent, industry-university collaboration and PhD researchers have significant impact on the open science decision, especially the influence of the PhD researchers is the most significant, However, the impact of patent and the size of researchers is not significant.(2) Basic research, applied research, patent and PhD researchers have significant impact on the scientific disclosure decision, but the impact of industry-university collaboration is not significant. This means that firms are more concerned about the solution of technical problems rather than the publication of papers.(3) Patent have no significant impact on the decision-making of scientific openness, but there is a significant complementary relationship between scientific disclosure and patent.Our research enriches the theory of open innovation and scientific innovation, provides an important theoretical basis for promoting the scientific ability of Chinese firms.
The traditional theory considers that firms usually using appropriability regime(i.e. Secrecy, patents, complexity etc.) to protect proprietary innovative knowledge. Surprisingly, firms are increasingly adopting open science behavior in the context of open innovation and scientific innovation. Our paper systematically studies the theoretical connotation of firm's open science behavior. We conduct an econometric analysis with firm-level data from China, reveals the influencing factors of firms open science,from the four dimensions of internal research activities, industry and university cooperation, patent exclusivity and R&D personnel.We found that(1) Basic research, applied research, patent, industry-university collaboration and PhD researchers have significant impact on the open science decision, especially the influence of the PhD researchers is the most significant, However, the impact of patent and the size of researchers is not significant.(2) Basic research, applied research, patent and PhD researchers have significant impact on the scientific disclosure decision, but the impact of industry-university collaboration is not significant. This means that firms are more concerned about the solution of technical problems rather than the publication of papers.(3) Patent have no significant impact on the decision-making of scientific openness, but there is a significant complementary relationship between scientific disclosure and patent.Our research enriches the theory of open innovation and scientific innovation, provides an important theoretical basis for promoting the scientific ability of Chinese firms.
引文
[1] Arrow K.Economics of welfare and the allocation of resources for invention[A].Nelson R.The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity[C].Princeton University Press,1962.
[2] Teece D J.Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration,collaboration,licensing and public policy[J].Research Policy,1986,15 (6):285-305.
[3] Cohen W M,Levintha D A.Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D[J].Economic Journal,1989,99 (397):569-596.
[4] Hicks D.Published papers,tacit competencies and corporate management of the public private character of knowledge[J].Industrial and Corporate Change,1995,4(2):401-424.
[5] Penin J.Open knowledge disclosure:An overview of the evidence and economic motivations[J].Journal of Economic Surveys,2007,21 (2):326-347.
[6] Ding W.The impact of founders’ professional-education background on the adoption of open science by for-profit biotechnology firms[J].Management Science,2011,57(2):257-273.
[7] Jong S,Slavova K.When publications lead to products:The open science conundrum in new product development[J].Research Policy,2014,43 (4):645-654.
[8] Simeth M,Lhuillery S.How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?[J].Research Policy,2015,44(7):1283-1295.
[9] Astebro T,Bazzazian N,Braguinsky S.Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty:Implications for university entrepreneurship policy[J].Research Policy,2012,41(4):663-677.
[10] Alexy O,George G,Salter A,et al.The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity[J].Academy of Management Review,2013,38,270-291.
[11] Simeth M,Raffo J D S.What makes companies pursue an open science strategy[J].Research Policy,2013,42(9):1531-1543.
[12] Allen R C.Collective invention[J].Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,1983,4(1):1-24.
[13] Lim K.The many faces of absorptive capacity:Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips[R].MIT Sloan Working Paper,4110,2000.
[14] Stern S.Do Scientists pay to be scientists?[J].Management Science,2004,50(6):835-853.
[15] Cockburn I M,Henderson R M.Absorptive capacity,coauthoring behavior,and the organization of research in drug discovery[J].Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46 (22):157-182.
[16] Mulle P,Pénin J.Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter?[J] Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2006,16(1-2):85-108.
[17] Lhuillery S.Voluntary technological disclosure as an efficient knowledge management device:An empirical study [J].Economics of Innovation & New Technology,2006,15 (4-5):465-491.
[18] Harhoff D,Henkel J,von Hippel E.Profiting from voluntary information spillovers:How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations[J].Research Policy,2003,32 (10):1753-1769.
[19] Henkel J.Selective revealing in open innovation processes:The case of embedded Linux[J].Research Policy,2006,35 (7):953-969.
[20] Henkel J,Sch?berl S,Alexy O.The emergence of openness:How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation[J].Research Policy,2014,43 (5):879-890.
[21] Johnson J P.Defensive publishing by a leading firm[R].Cornell University Working Paper,2004.
[22] Baker S,Mezzetti C.Disclosure as a strategy in the patent race[J].Journal of Law & Economics,2005,48 (1):173-194.
[23] 张学文,陈劲.开放科学对产业创新的影响:基于美国制造业的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2013,31(3):368-376.
[24] Polidoro F,Theeke M.Getting competition down to a science:The effects of technological competition on firms’ scientific publications [J].Organization Science,2012,23(4):907-1211.
[25] Rosenberg N.Why firms do basic research (with their own money) [J].Research Policy,1990,19 (2):165-174.
[26] Stokes D E.Pasteur's Quadrant:Basic Science and Technological Innovation[M].Washington,D.C:Brookings Institution Press,1997.
[27] Murray F.Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks:Exploring tissue engineering [J].Research Policy,2002,31(8/9):1389-1403.
[28] Aghion P,Dewatripont M,Stein J C.Academic freedom,private-sector focus,and the process of innovation [J].RAND Journal of Economics,2008,39(3):617-635.
[29] Chesbrough H.Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M].Boston,MA:Harvard Business School Publishing,2003.
[30] Cohen W M,Nelson R R,Walsh J P.Links and impacts:The influence of public research on industrial R&D[J].Management Science,2002,48 (1):1-23.
[31] Dasgupta P,David P.Towards a new economics of science[J].Research Policy,1994,23(5):487-521.
[32] Gans J,Murray F,Stern S.Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge:Intellectual property protection and academic publication[J].Research Policy,2017,46(4):820-835.
[33] laLacetera N,Zirulia L.Individual preferences,organization,and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2012,84(2):550-570.
[34] Sauermann H,Roach M.Not all scientists pay to be scientists:PhDs’preferences for publishing in industrial employment[J].Research Policy,2014,43(1):32-47.
[2] Teece D J.Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration,collaboration,licensing and public policy[J].Research Policy,1986,15 (6):285-305.
[3] Cohen W M,Levintha D A.Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D[J].Economic Journal,1989,99 (397):569-596.
[4] Hicks D.Published papers,tacit competencies and corporate management of the public private character of knowledge[J].Industrial and Corporate Change,1995,4(2):401-424.
[5] Penin J.Open knowledge disclosure:An overview of the evidence and economic motivations[J].Journal of Economic Surveys,2007,21 (2):326-347.
[6] Ding W.The impact of founders’ professional-education background on the adoption of open science by for-profit biotechnology firms[J].Management Science,2011,57(2):257-273.
[7] Jong S,Slavova K.When publications lead to products:The open science conundrum in new product development[J].Research Policy,2014,43 (4):645-654.
[8] Simeth M,Lhuillery S.How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?[J].Research Policy,2015,44(7):1283-1295.
[9] Astebro T,Bazzazian N,Braguinsky S.Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty:Implications for university entrepreneurship policy[J].Research Policy,2012,41(4):663-677.
[10] Alexy O,George G,Salter A,et al.The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity[J].Academy of Management Review,2013,38,270-291.
[11] Simeth M,Raffo J D S.What makes companies pursue an open science strategy[J].Research Policy,2013,42(9):1531-1543.
[12] Allen R C.Collective invention[J].Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,1983,4(1):1-24.
[13] Lim K.The many faces of absorptive capacity:Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips[R].MIT Sloan Working Paper,4110,2000.
[14] Stern S.Do Scientists pay to be scientists?[J].Management Science,2004,50(6):835-853.
[15] Cockburn I M,Henderson R M.Absorptive capacity,coauthoring behavior,and the organization of research in drug discovery[J].Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46 (22):157-182.
[16] Mulle P,Pénin J.Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter?[J] Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2006,16(1-2):85-108.
[17] Lhuillery S.Voluntary technological disclosure as an efficient knowledge management device:An empirical study [J].Economics of Innovation & New Technology,2006,15 (4-5):465-491.
[18] Harhoff D,Henkel J,von Hippel E.Profiting from voluntary information spillovers:How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations[J].Research Policy,2003,32 (10):1753-1769.
[19] Henkel J.Selective revealing in open innovation processes:The case of embedded Linux[J].Research Policy,2006,35 (7):953-969.
[20] Henkel J,Sch?berl S,Alexy O.The emergence of openness:How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation[J].Research Policy,2014,43 (5):879-890.
[21] Johnson J P.Defensive publishing by a leading firm[R].Cornell University Working Paper,2004.
[22] Baker S,Mezzetti C.Disclosure as a strategy in the patent race[J].Journal of Law & Economics,2005,48 (1):173-194.
[23] 张学文,陈劲.开放科学对产业创新的影响:基于美国制造业的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2013,31(3):368-376.
[24] Polidoro F,Theeke M.Getting competition down to a science:The effects of technological competition on firms’ scientific publications [J].Organization Science,2012,23(4):907-1211.
[25] Rosenberg N.Why firms do basic research (with their own money) [J].Research Policy,1990,19 (2):165-174.
[26] Stokes D E.Pasteur's Quadrant:Basic Science and Technological Innovation[M].Washington,D.C:Brookings Institution Press,1997.
[27] Murray F.Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks:Exploring tissue engineering [J].Research Policy,2002,31(8/9):1389-1403.
[28] Aghion P,Dewatripont M,Stein J C.Academic freedom,private-sector focus,and the process of innovation [J].RAND Journal of Economics,2008,39(3):617-635.
[29] Chesbrough H.Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M].Boston,MA:Harvard Business School Publishing,2003.
[30] Cohen W M,Nelson R R,Walsh J P.Links and impacts:The influence of public research on industrial R&D[J].Management Science,2002,48 (1):1-23.
[31] Dasgupta P,David P.Towards a new economics of science[J].Research Policy,1994,23(5):487-521.
[32] Gans J,Murray F,Stern S.Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge:Intellectual property protection and academic publication[J].Research Policy,2017,46(4):820-835.
[33] laLacetera N,Zirulia L.Individual preferences,organization,and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2012,84(2):550-570.
[34] Sauermann H,Roach M.Not all scientists pay to be scientists:PhDs’preferences for publishing in industrial employment[J].Research Policy,2014,43(1):32-47.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |