Análise da interação universidade-empresa para o desenvolvimento inovativo a partir da perspectiva teórica institucionalista-evolucionária

Dannyela da Cunha Lemos; Silvio Antonio Ferraz Cario

doi:10.20396/rbi.v14i2.8649112

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2015), Articles

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2015)

Analysis of the university-industry interaction for innovative development from the evolutionary-institutional theoretical perspective

Articles

https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v14i2.8649112

Published 2015-09-10

Dannyela da Cunha Lemos⁺⁻
Silvio Antonio Ferraz Cario⁺⁻

Dannyela da Cunha Lemos

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina

Silvio Antonio Ferraz Cario

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Keywords

University-Industry Interaction
Evolutionary-Institutional Perspective
Habits
Institutions
Physical Technology
Social Technology

How to Cite

LEMOS, Dannyela da Cunha; CARIO, Silvio Antonio Ferraz. Analysis of the university-industry interaction for innovative development from the evolutionary-institutional theoretical perspective. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, Campinas, SP, v. 14, n. 2, p. 361–382, 2015. DOI: 10.20396/rbi.v14i2.8649112. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rbi/article/view/8649112. Acesso em: 18 jul. 2024.

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the university-industry (U-I) interaction to the innovative development, in Santa Catarina, through the evolutionary-institutional theoretical perspective. It was a descriptive-explanatory study with a qualitative approach and conducted through field research, in the four major universities of Santa Catarina. For data collection, it was possible to perform 38 interviews in depth. The data was treated by analysis of categorical content, with the support of the qualitative data analysis software Atlas/ti, from the following categories of analysis: individual dimension (habits), collective dimension (institutions), physical technologies and social technologies. The results showed that the U-I interaction, in Santa Catarina, is highly conditioned to the individual dimension. Thus, the approach to the productive sector and partnerships does not qualify, indeed, as an institutional strategy. However, it reflects isolated actions of researchers, research groups or departments.

https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v14i2.8649112

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

BERNARDES, A.; ALBUQUERQUE, E. M. Cross-over, thresholds and the interactions between science and technology: lessons for less-developed countries. Research Policy, v. 2, n. 5, p. 867–887, 2003.

BEKKERS, R.; FREITAS, I. M. B. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, v. 37, p. 1837-1853, 2008.

BOARDMAN, P. C. Government centrality to university–industry interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, v. 38, p. 1505-1516, 2009.

CAPES. GEOCAPES: Dados estatísticos. 2012. Disponível em: http://geocapes.capes.gov.br/geocapesds/. Acesso em: 31 out. 2013.

CNPq – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Diretório dos Grupos de Pesquisa do CNPq. Censos 2002 a 2010. S/d. Disponível em: http://dgp.cnpq.br/censos/index.htm. Acesso em: 22 jun. 2013.

COHEN, W. M.; NELSON, R. R.; WALSH, J. P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, v. 48, n. 1, p. 1-23, jan. 2002.

CONCEIÇÃO, O. A. C. Tecnologia social e instituições: uma relação conceitual simbiótica. Economia & Tecnologia, ano 5, v. 16, p. 99-108, jan./mar. 2009.

CONCEIÇÃO, O. A. C. Há compatibilidade entre a “tecnologia social” de Nelson e a “causalidade vebleniana” de Hodgson? Revista de Economia Política, v. 32, n. 1, p. 109-127, jan./mar. 2012.

DAGNINO, R. Tecnologia social: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade. Campinas- SP: Komedi, 2010. Research Policy, v. 37, p. 1-11, 2008.

DAGNINO, R. What makes an economy productive and progressive? What are the needed institutions? Pisa, Italy: Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, 2006 (Working paper, 24).

NELSON, R. R.; NELSON, K. Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research Policy, v. 31, p. 265-272, 2002.

NELSON, R. R.; SAMPAT, B. Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, v. 44, p. 31-54, 2001.

NORTH, D. C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

NORTH, D. C. Institutions. Journal of Economics Perspectives, v. 5, n. 1, p. 97-112, winter, 1991.

PAVITT, K. Innovation processes. In: FAGERBERG, J.; MOWERY, D. C.; NELSON, R. R. The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 86-114.

PEREIRA, A. J.; DATHEIN, R. Processo de aprendizado, acumulação de conhecimento e sistemas de inovação: a “co-evolução das tecnologiasfísicas e sociais” como fonte de desenvolvimento econômico. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, v. 11, n. 1, p. 137-166, jan./jun. 2012.

PERKMANN, M.; KING, Z.; PAVELIN, S. Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, v. 40, p. 539-552, 2011.

SAAD, M; ZAWDIE, G. Introduction to special issue: the emerging role of universities in socio-economic development through knowledge networking. Science and Public Policy, v. 38 n. 1, p. 3-6, Feb. 2011.

TARTARI, V.; BRESCHI, S. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university-industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 21, n. 5, p.1117-1147, 2012.

The content of the articles and reviews published in RBI are of absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.