基于知识的产学合作创新：边界与路径研究
|
摘要
知识经济是以知识生产和创新为主导的经济形态,企业和大学作为经济系统中两大核心R＆D主体,两者的合作对自主创新能力的提高和经济增长的贡献越来越重要。产学合作的本质是知识的生产、创新和应用,企业和大学作为异质性的知识型组织,两者天生就具有很强的合作动机。经济全球化、网络化和开放式合作创新时代对产学合作理论提出了新的要求,再加上,我国正在实现全面贯彻落实科学发展观、转变增长方式、提高自主创新能力、建设创新型国家的伟大战略目标,这更需要新的产学合作理论加以指导。本研究对探索中国特色自主创新道路具有重大的理论和现实意义。
本研究在现有产学合作理论的基础上,通过理论构建和实证测量,从知识的视角提出一种新的产学合作边界与路径理论模型。本研究的基本内容共有七章：第一章,绪论,包括问题的提出、研究的意义和研究设计；第二章,产学合作相关理论述评,包括知识的经典理论和NIS,NPK,TH,KBT,EU等经典产学合作理论的述评；第三章,一种新的产学合作边界—知识开放与知识封闭；第四章,基于知识的产学合作路径理论建构；第五章,基于知识的产学合作路径实证测量；第六章,中国的产学合作与政策设计；第七章,结论和展望。
本研究的主要贡献包括以下几方面。第一,提出一种新的产学合作知识边界：知识开放与封闭,大学是科学共和国(Republic of Science)的典范,大学的知识边界是开放知识；企业是技术王国(Kingdom of Technology)的典范,企业的知识边界是封闭或独占知识。第二,确立了企业和大学各自的知识治理机制,大学的知识治理机制是基于发现优先权的学术激励机制,即开放科学机制。企业的知识治理机制主要是基于经济租金的独占性机制,既封闭科学机制。第三,创造出一种新的产学知识合作路径模型：开放科学和创业科学。开放科学路径是基于知识互补原理、产学R＆D分工和线性创新模式而产生的。创业科学路径模型是基于知识交互原理、大学创业职能和交互式创新模型而产生的。第四,开发出了开放科学和创业科学路径模型的运行机理,开放科学模型的运行机理是：企业向政府交税,政府公共资助大学研究,大学通过知识库和人才库向企业开放知识,企业积极地吸收大学的知识。创业科学模型的运行机理是：政府公共资助大学研究的同时,企业也直接资助大学研究,大学通过知识服务现有企业和衍生新的企业,进行高级形态的知识开放。第五,对美国的34个制造型产业和50所研究型大学进行了两大路经的实证测量,得出了两大路径具体的表现形态和模式。对于产业来讲,吸收出版物、雇用人力资本、合作研究、公开会议属于开放科学路径,委托研究、咨询服务、人员交流、专利许可属于创业科学路径。对于大学来讲,SCI论文、NS论文、获奖、博士培养属于开放科学路径,衍生企业、发明披露、美国专利、许可属于创业科学路径。第六,设计出一套促进中国产学合作的政策体系,包括开放科学制度、知识产权制度、利益分配机制、知识创业机制、产学合作促进法、科研考核体制六大方面。
Knowledge-based economy is the economic patterns based on the production and innovation-oriented knowledge. Enterprises and universities as two cores of R&D parts in the economic system, their collaboration is increasingly important for enhancing the independent innovation capabilities and contributing to the economic growth. The nature of Industry-University Collaboration (IUC) is the production, innovation and application of the knowledge. Enterprises and universities as the knowledge-based heterogeneous organization, both inherently have a strong motive for collaboration. A new era of economic globalization, networking, and open collaboration innovation puts forward new demands for the IUC theory. Moreover, our country is achieving a great strategic goal which fully implements the scientific outlook on development, changing the mode of growth, enhancing the independent innovation capability and building an innovative-oriented country which requires a new IUC theory to guide. This study has great theoretical and practical significance for exploring the road of independent innovation with Chinese characteristics.
On the basis of existing IUC theory, through theoretical construction and empirical measurement, this study presents a new theoretical model on the boundary and path of IUC from the perspective of knowledge. This paper includes seven chapters. Chapterl, introduction—statement of the problem, the research significance and research design.Chapter2, the criticism of the related IUC Theory including the classical theory of knowledge and the NIS, NPK, TH, KBT, EU and other classical IUC theory. Chapter3, a new IUC boundary—the opened knowledge and the closed knowledge.Chapter4, building the theory of the IUC path based on knowledge.Chapter5, empirical measurement path of IUC based on knowledge. Chapter6, IUC and the policy design in China. Chapter7, conclusions and prospects.
The main contributions of this paper are the following aspects. Firstly, this paper has presented a new knowledge boundary of IUC--- the opened knowledge and the closed knowledge. University is the Paradigm of the Republic of Science, its knowledge boundary is open. Enterprise is the Paradigm of the Kingdom of Technology, its knowledge boundary is closed. Secondly, this paper has established the mechanism of knowledge governance of university and enterprise. For University it is academic incentive mechanism based on the priority of discovery that is opened science mechanism. For Enterprise, it is exclusive mechanism based on economic rents that is closed science mechanism. Thirdly, this paper has created a new path model of IUC---Open Science (OS) and entrepreneurial science (ES). The OS path was generated by Knowledge complementary theory, IU R&D division of labor and the linear innovation model. The ES path was generated by knowledge interaction theory, the entrepreneurial functions of university and interactive innovation mode. Fourthly, this paper has developed the operation mechanism of OS and ES. OS model is that enterprises pay taxes to the government, then the Government publicly funds the university research, universities open the knowledge for enterprises on the base of Human capital, and enterprises actively absorb the knowledge. ES model is that the government publicly funds the university research, at the same time enterprises can also fund them directly, universities open high-level forms of knowledge for enterprises through knowledge service and entrepreneurship. Fifthly, this paper has measured the OS and ES path of 34 U.S. manufacturing industry and 50 research universities. We have found the specific patterns of the OS and ES path. For industry, the OS path includes absorption of publications, employment of human capital, collaborative research, public conferences and meetings; the ES path includes contract research, consulting services, personnel exchanges, patent licenses. For universities, the OS path includes SCI papers, NS papers, Awards, Training Doctors. The ES path includes derivative enterprises, invention disclosure, U.S. patent, license. Sixthly, this paper has designed a policy system in promoting IUC in China which includes open science system, intellectual property system, benefit distribution mechanisms, knowledge-based entrepreneurship mechanisms, IUC Act, and Research evaluation system etc.
本研究在现有产学合作理论的基础上,通过理论构建和实证测量,从知识的视角提出一种新的产学合作边界与路径理论模型。本研究的基本内容共有七章：第一章,绪论,包括问题的提出、研究的意义和研究设计；第二章,产学合作相关理论述评,包括知识的经典理论和NIS,NPK,TH,KBT,EU等经典产学合作理论的述评；第三章,一种新的产学合作边界—知识开放与知识封闭；第四章,基于知识的产学合作路径理论建构；第五章,基于知识的产学合作路径实证测量；第六章,中国的产学合作与政策设计；第七章,结论和展望。
本研究的主要贡献包括以下几方面。第一,提出一种新的产学合作知识边界：知识开放与封闭,大学是科学共和国(Republic of Science)的典范,大学的知识边界是开放知识；企业是技术王国(Kingdom of Technology)的典范,企业的知识边界是封闭或独占知识。第二,确立了企业和大学各自的知识治理机制,大学的知识治理机制是基于发现优先权的学术激励机制,即开放科学机制。企业的知识治理机制主要是基于经济租金的独占性机制,既封闭科学机制。第三,创造出一种新的产学知识合作路径模型：开放科学和创业科学。开放科学路径是基于知识互补原理、产学R＆D分工和线性创新模式而产生的。创业科学路径模型是基于知识交互原理、大学创业职能和交互式创新模型而产生的。第四,开发出了开放科学和创业科学路径模型的运行机理,开放科学模型的运行机理是：企业向政府交税,政府公共资助大学研究,大学通过知识库和人才库向企业开放知识,企业积极地吸收大学的知识。创业科学模型的运行机理是：政府公共资助大学研究的同时,企业也直接资助大学研究,大学通过知识服务现有企业和衍生新的企业,进行高级形态的知识开放。第五,对美国的34个制造型产业和50所研究型大学进行了两大路经的实证测量,得出了两大路径具体的表现形态和模式。对于产业来讲,吸收出版物、雇用人力资本、合作研究、公开会议属于开放科学路径,委托研究、咨询服务、人员交流、专利许可属于创业科学路径。对于大学来讲,SCI论文、NS论文、获奖、博士培养属于开放科学路径,衍生企业、发明披露、美国专利、许可属于创业科学路径。第六,设计出一套促进中国产学合作的政策体系,包括开放科学制度、知识产权制度、利益分配机制、知识创业机制、产学合作促进法、科研考核体制六大方面。
Knowledge-based economy is the economic patterns based on the production and innovation-oriented knowledge. Enterprises and universities as two cores of R&D parts in the economic system, their collaboration is increasingly important for enhancing the independent innovation capabilities and contributing to the economic growth. The nature of Industry-University Collaboration (IUC) is the production, innovation and application of the knowledge. Enterprises and universities as the knowledge-based heterogeneous organization, both inherently have a strong motive for collaboration. A new era of economic globalization, networking, and open collaboration innovation puts forward new demands for the IUC theory. Moreover, our country is achieving a great strategic goal which fully implements the scientific outlook on development, changing the mode of growth, enhancing the independent innovation capability and building an innovative-oriented country which requires a new IUC theory to guide. This study has great theoretical and practical significance for exploring the road of independent innovation with Chinese characteristics.
On the basis of existing IUC theory, through theoretical construction and empirical measurement, this study presents a new theoretical model on the boundary and path of IUC from the perspective of knowledge. This paper includes seven chapters. Chapterl, introduction—statement of the problem, the research significance and research design.Chapter2, the criticism of the related IUC Theory including the classical theory of knowledge and the NIS, NPK, TH, KBT, EU and other classical IUC theory. Chapter3, a new IUC boundary—the opened knowledge and the closed knowledge.Chapter4, building the theory of the IUC path based on knowledge.Chapter5, empirical measurement path of IUC based on knowledge. Chapter6, IUC and the policy design in China. Chapter7, conclusions and prospects.
The main contributions of this paper are the following aspects. Firstly, this paper has presented a new knowledge boundary of IUC--- the opened knowledge and the closed knowledge. University is the Paradigm of the Republic of Science, its knowledge boundary is open. Enterprise is the Paradigm of the Kingdom of Technology, its knowledge boundary is closed. Secondly, this paper has established the mechanism of knowledge governance of university and enterprise. For University it is academic incentive mechanism based on the priority of discovery that is opened science mechanism. For Enterprise, it is exclusive mechanism based on economic rents that is closed science mechanism. Thirdly, this paper has created a new path model of IUC---Open Science (OS) and entrepreneurial science (ES). The OS path was generated by Knowledge complementary theory, IU R&D division of labor and the linear innovation model. The ES path was generated by knowledge interaction theory, the entrepreneurial functions of university and interactive innovation mode. Fourthly, this paper has developed the operation mechanism of OS and ES. OS model is that enterprises pay taxes to the government, then the Government publicly funds the university research, universities open the knowledge for enterprises on the base of Human capital, and enterprises actively absorb the knowledge. ES model is that the government publicly funds the university research, at the same time enterprises can also fund them directly, universities open high-level forms of knowledge for enterprises through knowledge service and entrepreneurship. Fifthly, this paper has measured the OS and ES path of 34 U.S. manufacturing industry and 50 research universities. We have found the specific patterns of the OS and ES path. For industry, the OS path includes absorption of publications, employment of human capital, collaborative research, public conferences and meetings; the ES path includes contract research, consulting services, personnel exchanges, patent licenses. For universities, the OS path includes SCI papers, NS papers, Awards, Training Doctors. The ES path includes derivative enterprises, invention disclosure, U.S. patent, license. Sixthly, this paper has designed a policy system in promoting IUC in China which includes open science system, intellectual property system, benefit distribution mechanisms, knowledge-based entrepreneurship mechanisms, IUC Act, and Research evaluation system etc.
引文
[1]Acs,Z. Varga, A. Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and Technological Change[J]. Small Business Economics,2005,24(3):323-334.
[2]Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., Starkey, K. Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2001,26(1-2)73-86.
[3]Adams, J., D. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth [J]. Journal of Political Economy 1990,98(4):673-702.
[4]Alchian, A. A.,Demsetz,H. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization [J].The American Economic Review,1972,62, (5):777-795
[5]Allen, R. C. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1983.4(1):1-24.
[6j Antonelli, C., Patrucco, P., Rossi, F. The economics of knowledge interactions and the changing role of universities, in Gallouj, F. ed. Handbook of the economics of services, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.2008.
[7]Antonelli, C. The economics of governance:the role of localized knowledge in the interdependence among transaction, coordination and production[R]. Franco Momigliano, Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio Carlo,2003-03.
[8]Antonelli,C. Technological knowledge as an essential facility [J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2007,17(4):451-471.
[9]Antonelli, C. The new economics of the university:A knowledge governance Approach[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2008,33(1):1-22.
[10]Arrow, K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in Nelson R.R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1962:609-625.
[11]Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann,E. E, Warning, S. University spillovers and new firm location[J]. Research Policy,2005,34 (7):1113-1122.
[12]Belderbos, R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B. R&D cooperation and firm perf ormance [J]. Research Pol icy[J].2004,33(10):1477-1492.
[13]Blume, S. Behavioral aspects of research management:a review[J]. Research Policy,1974,3(1):40-76.
[14]Bruce,K.,Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory[J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1993,24(.4):625-645
[15]Burnham, J. B. Evaluating Industry University Research Linkages[J]. Research Technology Management,1997(1-2):52-55.
[16]Bush, V. Science, the Endless Frontier:A Report to the President[R]. Washington, DC.:Public Affairs Press,1945.
[17]Cantwell. J, Kosmopoulou. E. Determinants of internationalization of corporate technology[R]. DRUID Working Paper,2001,No 01-08.
[18]Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[19]Clark, B. R. The Entrepreneurial University:New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement[J]. Higher Education Management,2001,13(2):9-24.
[20]Clark, B. R Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university[J]. Higher Education Policy,2004,17(4):355-370.
[21]Clark, B. R, Sustaining change in universities:Continuities in case studies and concepts[J]. Tertiary Education and Management,2003,9(2):99-116.
[22]Clark, B. R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:Organizational Path-ways of Transformation[M]. Oxford, England:Pergamon,1998.
[23]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm[J].Economica,1937,4(16):386-405.
[24]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(2):157-182.
[25]Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D[J]. Economic Journal,1989,99(397):569-596.
[26]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal,D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and Innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[27]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.
[28]Conner, K. R. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organizational economics[J]. Journal of Management, 1991,17(1):121-154.
[29]Cowan, R., David, P. A., and Foray, D. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000,9(2):211-253.
[30]D'Este. P., Patel, P. University industry linkages in the UK:what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry[J]. Research Policy,2007,36 (9):1295-1313.
[31]Das, T. K. and Teng, B-S. Between Trust and Control:Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998,23 (3): 491-512.
[32]Dasgupta, P., David P. A. Patents, Priority and Imitation or, the Economics of Races and Waiting Games[J] The Economic Journal,1988,98(389):66-80.
[33]Dasgupta, P., David P. A.:Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology[C]. In Feiwel,G. R. (ed.):Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York:New York University Press,1987:510-542
[34]Dasgupta, P., David, P. A. Toward a new economics of science[J]. Research Policy,1994,23(5):487-521.
[35]Davenport, T. H. Prusak, L. Working Knowledge:How Organizations Manage What They Know [M]]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press
[36]David, C. M., Arvids,A.Z. Numbers, Quality, and Entry:How has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected US University Patenting and Licensing [J]. Innovation Policy and the Economy,2000(1):187-220.
[37]David, P. A. Understanding the emergence of'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2004,13(4):571-589.
[38]David, P. A. Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions [J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(2):15-21.
[39]Davies, H. Technology Transfer Through Commercial Transactions[J] The Journal of Industrial Economics,1977,26(2):161-175.
[40]Demsetz, H. The theory of the firm revisited[J]. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization.1988,4(1):141-161.
[41]Drucker, P. F. Post-Capitalist Society [M]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press, 1993.
[42]Drucker, P. F. Men, Ideas and Politics[M]. New York:Harpercollins,1971.
[43]Drucker, P. F. Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management[M]. Boston:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[44]Dyer, J. H., Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network:the Toyota case[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3): 345-367.
[45]Edquist, C. Systems of innovation technologies, institutions, and organizations [M]. London, Washington:Pinter,1997.
[46]Etzkowitz, H. and Webster, A. The future of the university.and the university of the future:evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm[J]. Research Policy,2000,29(2):313-330.
[47]Etzkowitz, H., MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science[M]. London:Routledge. 2002.
[48]Etzkowitz, H. Bridging the Gap:The Evolution of Industry-University Links in the United States, in:Branscomb, L. and Kodama, F. (Editors), Industrializing Knowledge:University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge: MIT Press,MA.1999.
[49]Etzkowitz, H., Klofsten, M. The innovating region:toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development[J]. R&D Management,2005.,35(3):243-255.
[50]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L, The dynamics of innovation:from National Systems and'Mode 2'to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations [J]. Research Pol icy,2000,29(2):109-123.
[51]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (Editors), Universities in the Global Economy:A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations[M]. London:Cassell Academic,1997:106-117.
[52]Etzkowitz, H. The norms of entrepreneurial science:cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages[J]. Research Policy,1998,27(8):823-833.
[53]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The Triple Helix:University-Industry-Government Relations:A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development [J]. EASST Review 1995,14(1):14-19.
[54]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff. L. The endless transition:a Triple Helix of university industry government relations, Introduction to a theme issue [J]. Minerva 1998.36(Special issue):203-208.
[55]Etzkowitz, H. The Second Academic Revolution:MIT and The Rise of Entrepreneurial Science [M].New York:Gor2 don & Breach,2002.
[56]Etzkowitz. H, Healey. P, Webster. A. Capitalizing Knowledge:New Intersections Of Industry And Academia[M]. New York:State University Of New York Press,1998.
[57]European Commission. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relations-The Role of Framework Conditions[R]. Benchmarking Co-ordination Office,2001:33-38.
[58]Fabrizio, K. R.,Mowery,D. C. Defense-related R&D and the growth of the postwar information technology industrial complex in the United States [J]. Revue d' economie Industrielle,2005,112:27-44.
[59]Feller, I.,Ailes, C. P., Roessner, J. D. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry:evidence from engineering research centers[J]. Research Policy 2002,31(3):457-474.
[60]Fontana, R. Geuna, A. Matt, M. Firm Size and Openness:the Driving Forces of University Industry Collaboration[R]. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 103,2003.
[61]Foray, D. The Economics of Knowledge[M]. Cambridge:MIT press,2004.
[62]Foss, N. A market-process approach to corporate coherence[J]. Managerial and Decision Economics,2001,22(4-5):213-226.
[63]Freeman, C. Technology Policy and Economic Performance:Lesson from Japan[M]. London:Frances Pinter.1987.
[64]Freeman, C. The National System of Innovation in Historical Perspective[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1995,19(1):5-24.
[65]Freeman, C., Japan:A New National System of Innovation, in G. Dosi et al. (Eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, London:Pinter,1988.
[66]Frieder, M. K., Ulrich, S. Science-based technologies:university-industry interactions in four fields[J]. Research Policy,1998,27 (8):35-851.
[67]Galunic, D. C. and Rodan, S. Resource recombination in the firm:knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(12):1193-1201.
[68]Georghiou, L. Global cooperation in research[J]. Research Policy,1998,27(6): 611-626
[69]Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, C., Scott, P. and Trow, M. The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society[M]. London:Sage Publications.1994
[70]Gibbons, M. Johnston, R. The roles of science in technological innovation[J] Research Policy,1974,3(3):220-242.
[71]Gibbons, M. Science's new social contract with society[J]. Nature,1999,402(2): 81-84.
[72]Gittelman, M., Kogut, B. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns [J]. Management Science,2002,49 (4):336.
[73]Glaser,B. Organizational Scientists:Their professional careers[M]. New York: Bobbs-Merril company.1964.
[74]Godin, B., Gingras, Y. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production[J]. Research Policy,2000,29(2):273-278.
[75]Goldfarb, B., Marschke, G., Smith, A. Scholarship and Inventive Activity in the University:Complements or Substitutes[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2009,18(8):743-756.
[76]Grant R M. The knowledge-based view of the firm:Implications for management practice[J]. Long Range Planning,June 1997,30(3):450-454.
[77]Grant, R. M.. Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):109-122.
[78]Grant, R. M. Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments:Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration[J]. Organization Science,1996,7(4):375-387.
[79]Griliches, Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth[J]. Bell Journal of Economics,1979,10(1):92-116.
[80]Griliches, Z. Productivity, R and D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970's, American Economic Review[J].1986,76(1):141-154.
[81]Griliches, Z. R&D and Productivity:Econometric Results and Measurement Issues, In From Stoneman, P. Ed. Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Oxford:Blackwell,1995:53-89.
[82]Guellec, D., Pottelsberghe, V. A. The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D[R].OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,2000.4.
[83]Hall, B. H., Link, A. N.,. Scott, J. T. Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities, Journal of Technology Transfer [J].2001),26(1-2):87-98.
[84]Harris, D. Creating a Knowledge Centric Information Technology Environment [EB/OL]. http://www. dbharris. com/ckc. htm,2009-05-06.
[85]Hayek, F. A. Sensory Order[M], Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1952.
[86]Hayek, F. A., The Use of Knowledge in Society[J]. American Economic Review, 1945,35(4):519-530.
[87]Hayek, F. A. Economics and Knowledge[J]. Economica,1937,4(13):33-54.
[88]Hayek, F. A. The Sensory Orde[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1952.
[89]Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. Universities as a source of commercial technology:a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,1998,80(1):119-127.
[90]Hessels, L. K. and Lente, H. V Re-thinking new knowledge production:A literature review and a research agenda[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(4):740-760.
[91]Hicks, D. Published papers,tacit competencies and corporate management of the public-private character of knowledge [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change1995,4(2): 401-424.
[92]Hicks, D. The changing science and technology environment, in Teich, A. H., Nelson, S. D.,Lita, S. J. (Eds),AAS Science and Technology Yearbook, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington:DC,2002:255-365.
[93]Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S, Banks, B. A. Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation[J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):183-205.
[94]Jaffe, A. B. Real Effects of Academic Research[J]. American Economic Review,1989, 79(5):957-970.
[95]Jencks, C., Riesman, D. The Academic Revolution[M]. New York:Doubleday,1968.
[96]Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B-K. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(5):680-693.
[97]Kingston, W. Innovation needs patents reforms [J], Research Policy 2001,30(3): 403-423.
[98]Kogut, B., Zander. U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization Science,1992.3(3):383-397.
[99]Kogut, B. The Network as Knowledge:Generative Rules and the Emergence of Structure[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):405-425.
[100]Kor, Y.Y., Mahoney, J. T. How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,26(5):489-496.
[101]Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5):461-477.
[102]Lee, S. and Choi,B. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance:An Integrative View and Empirical Examination[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems,2003,20(1):179-228.
[103]Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. Emergence of a Triple Helix of University Industry Government Relations [J]. Science and Public Policy,1996(23):279-286.
[104]Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies[J]. Science and Public Policy,1998,25(3):195-203.
[105]Liebeskind, J. P. Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):93-107.
[106]Liu, T. L., Shou, I. Enhancement of customer network relationship via governance mechanism of inter-organizational core resource and core knowledge strategic alliance[J]. The Journal of American Academy of Business,2004,5(1-2):220-230.
[107]Lundvall, B.-A Product innovation and user-producer interaction[M]. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.1985.
[108]Lundvall, B-A and Johnson, B. The learning economy[J]. Journal of Industry Studies,1994,1(2):23-42.
[109]Lundvall, B-A. Innovation as an interactive process:from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation, in:Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (Editors), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London,1988:349-369.
[110]Lundvall, B-A. National Innovation Systems:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning[M]. London:Pinter.1992.
[111]Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R.,Akgun, A. E. Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2000,47 (2):221-31.
[112]Machlup, F. Knowledge:its creation, distribution, and economic significance [M].New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984.
[113]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation[J]. Research Policy,1991,20(1):1-12.
[114]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation:An update of empirical findings[J]. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8):773-776.
[115]Martin, B, R,, Irvine, J. Internal criteria for scientific choice:An evaluation of research in high-energy physics using electron accelerators[J] Minerva 1981,19(3):408-432.
[116]Martin, B. R., Etzkowitz, H. The Origin and Evolution of the University Species[J]. Journal for Science and Technology Studies,2000,13(3-4):9-34.
[117]McMillan, G. S, Narin, F. Deeds, D.L. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation:the case of biotechnology Research Policy,2000,29(1):1-8.
[118]Merton,R.Priorities in Scientific Discovery:A Chapter in the Sociology of Science[J]. American Sociological Review,1957,22(6):635-659,
[119]Merton,R.The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[M]. Edited by Norman Storer. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[120]Merton, R.. A Note on Science and Democracy[J]. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1942(1):115-126
[121]Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[M]. Chicago IL:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[122]Metcalfe, J. S. The economic foundations of technology policy:equilibrium and evolutionary perspective. In:Stoneman, P. Editor. Handbook of Industrial Innovation, London:Blackwell,1995.
[123]Metcalfe, S. "The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy:Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives",in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford(UK)/Cambridge (US).1995.
[124]Motohashi, K. University-industry collaborations in Japan:The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System[M]. Research Policy,2005,34(5):583-594.
[125]Mowery, D. C., Ziedonis, A. A. Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States[J]. Research Policy,2000,31(3): 399-418.
[126]Murray, F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering[J]. Research Policy,2002,31(8-9):1389-1403.
[127]Nelson, R. R. Institutions supporting technical advance in industry[J]. The American Economic Review,1986.76(2):186-189.
[128]Nelson, R. R. National Innovation Systems:A Comparative Analysis [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1993.
[129]Nelson, R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research [J]. The Journal of Political Economy,1959,67(3):297-306.
[130]Nelson, R. R. The market economy and the scientific commons [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(3):455-471.
[131]Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M]. Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1982.
[132]Nelson, R. R. Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process[M]. Amsterdam:North Holland,1987.
[133]Nickerson, J. and Zenger, T. A knowledge-based theory of the firm:the problem-solving perspective[J]. Organization Science,2004,15(6):617-632.
[134]Nonaka I, Toyama R and Nagataa A firm as a knowledge creating entity:a new perspective on the theory of the firm[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000.9(1): 1-20.
[135]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science,1994,5(1):14-37.
[136]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge Creating Company:How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. London:Oxford University Press,1995.
[137]Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. A firm as a dialectic being.:toward the dynamic theory of the firm[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change (2002,11(5):995-1109.
[138]Nonaka, I. Managing innovation as an organizational knowledge creation process. In Allouche, J. and Pogorel, G. (Eds), Technology Management and Corporate Strategies:A Tricontinental Perspective. Amsterdam:Elsevier,1995:73-109.
[139]Nonaka, I. SECI, Ba and Leadership:a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation[J]. Long Range Planning,2000,33(1):5-34.
[140]Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. Re-thinking Science:Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty[M]. London:Polity Press,2001.
[141]Nuvolari,A. Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine Cambridge Journal of Economics 2004,28 (3):347-363
[142]OECD. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships[R]. OECD Publishing,Paris, 2002.
[143]OECD. Knowledge Management in a Learning Society[R]. OECD Publications, Paris, 2000.
[144]OECD. National Innovation Systems[R]. OECD Publications, Paris,1997.
[145]OECD. The Knowledge-Based Economy[R]. OECD Publications, Paris,1996.
[146]Oliver, C. Determinants of interorganizational relationships:'integration and future directions[J]. Academy of Management Review,1990,15(2):241-65.
[147]Osland, G. E, Yaprak, A. Learning through strategic alliances:processes and factors that enhance marketing effectiveness[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 1995,29(3):52-66.
[148]Pavitt, K. The social shaping of the national science base[J]. Research Policy,1998.27(8):793-805.
[149]Pavitt, K. What makes basic research economically useful[J]. Research Policy,1991,20(2):109-119.
[150]Penrose, E. T. The Theory of Growth of the Firm[M]. London:Basil Blackwell,1959.
[151]Polanyi, M. The republic of science[J].Minerva,1962,1:54-74.
[152]Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy [M]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1958.
[153]Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Reprinted 1983 by Peter Smith, Gloucester
[154]Polanyi,M. Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post Critical Philosophy[M]. London: Routledge.1958.
[155]Polanyi, M. The Republic of Science:Its Political and Economic Theory[J]. Minerva 1962 (1):54-74.
[156]Premus, P. University knowledge production and industrial innovation:the
evidence[J] International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 2003,2 (3):263-273.
[157]Purser, R. E. Pasmore, W. A. Organizing for Learning[J]. Research in Organizational Change and Development,1992, (6):37-114.
[158]Qunitas, P. Knowledge Management:A Strategic Agenda [J]. Long Range Planning, 1997,30 (3):385-391.
[159]Romer, P. M. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94(5):1002-1037.
[160]Romer, P.M. Endogenous Technological Change[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(5):71-102.
[161]Romer, P. M. The Origins of Endogenous Growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(1):3-22.
[162]Rosenberg, N. Birdzell, L. E., Science, Technology and the Western Miracle [J]. Scientific American,1990,263(5),42-45.
[163]Rosenberg, N. How exogenous is science? In:Rosenberg, N. (Ed.), Inside the Black Box. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1982.
[164]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research with their own money[J]. Research Policy,1990,19(2):165-174.
[165]Sabato, J., and Mackenzi, M., La produccion de technologia. Autonoma transnacional (Nueva Imagen, Mexico).1982
[166]Sabato, J. El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problematica ciencia-technologia-desarrollo-dependencia (Paidos, Buenos Aires).1975.
[167]Salter.A. J., Martin, B. R..The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research:a critical review Research Policy,2001,30(3):509-532.
[168]Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A. K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(7):1163-1180.
[169]Saviotti, P. and Nooteboom, B., Technology and Knowledge:From the Firm to Innovation Systems[M]. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.2000.
[170]Saxenian, A. Regional advantage:Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1994.
[171]Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., Frohlich, J. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria:sectoral patterns and determinants [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(3):303-328
[172]Senker, J. Tacit knowledge and models of innovation [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,1995,4 (2):425-447.
[173]Shapira, P,Youtie,J. University-Industry Relationships:Creating and Commercializing Knowledge in Georgia, USA, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia,2004.
[174]Simon, H. A. Models of bounded rationality. Behavioral Economics and Business Organization [M]. Cambridge, MA:Vol.2, MIT Press,.1951.
[175]Simon, H. B. The Sciences of the Artificial [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press 1969.
[176]Smith, H. L. Universities, innovation and the economy [M]. London:Routledge, 2006.
[177]Spender J. C., Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm:overview [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):5-9.
[178]Spender, J. C. Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issues):45-62.
[179]Steffensen. M., Rogers, E. M., Speakman,K. Spin-offs from Research Centers at a Research University [J ]Journal of Business Venturing,1999,15(1):93-111.
[180]Stephan, P. E. The Economics of Science [J] Journal of Economic Literature,1996, 34(3):1199-1235.
[181]Stokes, D. Pasteur's Quadrant:Basic Science and Technological Innovation. [M]. Washington, DC:Brookings Press,1996.
[182]Sutz, J. The university-industry-government relations in Latin America[J]. Research Policy, Volume 2000,29(2):279-290.
[183]Teece, D. J. Capturing value from knowledge assets:the new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. [J]. California Management Review 1998,40(3): 55-79.
[184]Teece, D. J. Prof iting from technological innovation[J]. Research Policy,1986, 15(6):285-305.
[185]Teece, D., Pisano, G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. In: Dosi, G., Teece, D. J., Chytry, J. (Eds.), Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness. Oxford.:Oxford University Press,1998.
[186]Teece, D. J. Managing Intellectual Capital[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000
[187]Toffler, A. The Third Wave[M]. New York:Bantam Books.1980.
[188]Tyre, M. J., von Hippel, E. The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations. Organization Science,1997,8(1):71-83.
[189]Urabe, K. Innovation and the Japanese management system. In:K. Urabe, J. Child and T. Kagono, Editors, Innovation and management international comparisons, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,1988.
[190]Varga, A. Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity[J]. Journal of Regional Science (2000),40(2):289-309.
[191]Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23(5-6):355-379.
[192]von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process[J]. Research Policy,1976,5(3):212-239.
[193]Von Hipple, E.Lead users:a source of novel product concepts[J].Management Science,1986,32(7):791-805.
[194]Von Hipple,E. The dominant role of users in semiconductor and electronic subassembly process innovation[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1977,24(2):60-71.
[195]Von. Hipple, E. Sticky Information and The Locus of Problem Solving; Implication for Innovation[J].Management Science,1994,40(4):429-439.
[196]Weingart, P. From'Finalization'to'Mode 2':Old Wine in New Bottles?[J]. Social Science Information,1997,36(4):591-614.
[197]Williams, T. Cooperation by design:structure and cooperation in inter organizational networks[J]Journal of Business Research,2005,58(2):223-231.
[198]Williamson,O. E. Markets and Hierarchies:Analysis and Antitrust Implications, a Study in the Economics of Internal Organization[M]. New York:Free Press.1975.
[199]Williamson,O. E. Reflections on the New Institutional Economics [J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,1985,11(1):187-195.
[200]Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M. Mid-range universities' linkages with industry:Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries [J]Research Policy,2008,37(8):1205-1223.
[201]Youtie, J., Shapira, P, Building an innovation hub:A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development Research Policy,2008,37(8):1188-1204.
[202]Ziman, J. Real Science:What it is and What it Means[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[203]Ziman, J. Prometheus bound:Science in a dynamic steady state[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[204]Zucker,G. L., Darby,M. R., Brewer, M. Intellectual capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises[J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(1):290-306.
[205]Zucker, L., Darby, M., Furner, J., Liu, R. C., Ma, H. Minerva unbound:Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production[J]. Research Policy,2007, 36(6):850-863.
[206]OECD.研究与发展调查手册,第5版,弗拉斯卡蒂丛书,科技部发展计划司,中国科技指标研究会主编,北京：新华出版社,2000a.
[207]OECD.技术创新调查手册(Oslo手册)第2版,弗拉斯卡蒂丛书,科技部发展计划司,中国科技指标研究会主编,北京：新华出版社,2000b.
[208]埃茨科维兹,周春彦.区域创新发动者：不同三螺旋模式下的创业型大学[C].第六届国际三螺旋大会主题论文,新加坡,2007.5.
[209]别敦荣等.大学推行学研产“一体化”的思考[J].高等教育研究,2002(1)：53-56.
[210]伯顿·克拉克(美)著,王承绪等译.高等教育系统：学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994.4.
[211]陈劲,朱朝晖.我国企业技术创新国际化的资源配置模式研究[J].科研管理,2003.24(5)：76-83.
[212]陈劲.新形势下产学研战略联盟创新与发展研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版,2009.
[213]陈翔峰.我国开展产学研合作的理论与实践研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[214]丁厚德.产学研合作是建设国家创新体系的基本国策[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(3)：50-54.
[215]樊春良.科学和技术政策研究进展[J].中国科学院院刊,2006,21(3)：234-239.
[216]符正平.西方企业理论研究中的三大科学研究纲领[J].经济学动态,1998.3
[217]郭斌.知识经济下产学合作的模式、机制与绩效评价[M].北京：科学出版社出版,2007.
[218]郭晓川.合作技术创新：大学与企业合作的理论和实证[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2001.
[219]汉森(美)著,冯大鸣译.教育管理与组织行为[M].上海：上海教育出版社,第5版,2005：73-77.
[220]胡恩华,郭秀丽.我国产学研合作创新中存在的问题及对策研究[J].科学管理研究,2002(2)：69-72.
[221]胡恩华.产学研合作创新中的问题及对策研究[J].研究与发展管理,2001.
[222]黄胜杰,张毅.我国产学研合作的组织模式及其网络特性探析[J].高等工程教育研究,2002(6)：30-33.
[223]贾根良,刘辉锋.科学经济学的兴起与最新发展[J].国外社会科学,2003,2：32-38.
[224]江积海,宣国良.企业知识传导与知识边界研究[J].情报科学,2005,23(1)：7-13.
[225]姜照华.科技进步在经济增长中的贡献率的测算方法与提高策略[M].哈尔滨：哈尔滨工业大学出版社,1996.
[226]蒋翠清,杨善林.知识创新与企业知识资产形成机理研究[J].中国科技论坛,2006,5：82-86.
[227]康全礼,田恩舜.地方高校在产学研合作中的定位问题[J].高等教育研究,2002(1)：58-63.
[228]李廉水.论产学研合作创新的组织方式[J].科研管理,1998,1(1)：30-33.
[229]李醒民.科学发现的优先权问题[N].北京科技报,1986.7.30.
[230]连燕华,马晓光.2001我国产学研合作发展态势评价[J].新材料产业,2001(3)：35-39.
[231]刘德智.工业企业技术创新产学研合作障碍研究[J].经济与管理研究,2001(1)：38-41
[232]刘广明.大学边界的形成与功能：组织社会学的视角[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2008,41(3)104-107.
[233]刘力.产学研合作的历史比较与现状研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2001.
[234]鲁若愚.企业大学合作创新机理研究[D].博士学位论文,清华大学,2002.
[235]路甬祥.创新与未来[M].北京：科学出版社,1998.
[236]吕海军,甘志霞.产学研合作创新研究述评及研究展望[J].生产力研究,2005,4.
[237]穆容平,赵兰香.产学研合作中若干问题思考[J].科技管理研究,1998,2：34-35.
[238]潘懋元等.发挥大学中心作用促进知识经济发展[J].教育发展研究,1999(6)：1-5.
[239]彭宜新,邹珊刚.从研究到创业—大学职能的演变[J].自然辩证法研究,2003,19(4)：44-48.
[240]苏敬勤.产学研合作创新的交易成本及内外部化条件[J].科研管理,1999,9(5)：68-71.
[241]孙天华.大学边界扩张的经济学分析[J].中国人民大学学报,2004,(5)：147-151.
[242]唐玮.大学-企业知识联盟建设中的政府作用研究[D].硕士学位论文,上海交通大学,2007.
[243]汪丁丁.知识沿时间和空间的互补性以及相关的经济学[J].经济研究,1997,6：70-78.
[244]汪忠,黄瑞华.基于知识视角的企业边界问题研究[J].科学管理研究,2005,23(2)：61-65.
[245]王建安.企业作为一种知识产权保护系统[J].科研管理,2002,23(2)：83-93.
[246]王建华.大学边界论J].清华大学教育研究,2006,27(6)：18-25.
[247]王雁,孔寒冰,王沛民,2003.创业型大学：研究型大学的挑战与机遇[J].高等教育研究,2003(5)：52-56.
[248]王雁,孔寒冰,王沛民2005两次学术革命与大学的两次转型《浙江大学学报》2005,35(3)：162-167.
[249]王雁.创业型大学-美国研究型大学模式变革的研究[D],博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.12.
[250]王毅,吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究[J].科研管理,2001,11(6)：114-121
[251]温正胞,谢芳芳.学术资本主义：创业型大学的组织特性[J].教育发展研究,2009,5：28-33.
[252]吴忠泽.加强产学研结合推动企业自主创新[J].中国高校科技与产业化,2006,8：56-58.
[253]谢开勇.国外高校产学研合作模式分析[J].中国科技论坛,2004(1)：119-122.
[254]余培果等.产学研联合技术创新存在问题的分析[J].中国科技论坛,2001(1)：21-24.
[255]余雅风,郑晓齐.大学—企业协同技术创新的资源标准[J].科学管理研究,2002(1)：4-6.
[256]周春彦,埃茨科威兹.三螺旋创新模式的理论探讨[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版)2008,10(4)：300-304.
[257]周春彦.大学- 产业- 政府三螺旋创新模式—亨利·埃茨科维兹《三螺旋》评介[J].自然辩证法研究,2006,22(4)：75—78.
[2]Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., Starkey, K. Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2001,26(1-2)73-86.
[3]Adams, J., D. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth [J]. Journal of Political Economy 1990,98(4):673-702.
[4]Alchian, A. A.,Demsetz,H. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization [J].The American Economic Review,1972,62, (5):777-795
[5]Allen, R. C. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1983.4(1):1-24.
[6j Antonelli, C., Patrucco, P., Rossi, F. The economics of knowledge interactions and the changing role of universities, in Gallouj, F. ed. Handbook of the economics of services, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.2008.
[7]Antonelli, C. The economics of governance:the role of localized knowledge in the interdependence among transaction, coordination and production[R]. Franco Momigliano, Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio Carlo,2003-03.
[8]Antonelli,C. Technological knowledge as an essential facility [J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2007,17(4):451-471.
[9]Antonelli, C. The new economics of the university:A knowledge governance Approach[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2008,33(1):1-22.
[10]Arrow, K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in Nelson R.R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1962:609-625.
[11]Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann,E. E, Warning, S. University spillovers and new firm location[J]. Research Policy,2005,34 (7):1113-1122.
[12]Belderbos, R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B. R&D cooperation and firm perf ormance [J]. Research Pol icy[J].2004,33(10):1477-1492.
[13]Blume, S. Behavioral aspects of research management:a review[J]. Research Policy,1974,3(1):40-76.
[14]Bruce,K.,Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory[J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1993,24(.4):625-645
[15]Burnham, J. B. Evaluating Industry University Research Linkages[J]. Research Technology Management,1997(1-2):52-55.
[16]Bush, V. Science, the Endless Frontier:A Report to the President[R]. Washington, DC.:Public Affairs Press,1945.
[17]Cantwell. J, Kosmopoulou. E. Determinants of internationalization of corporate technology[R]. DRUID Working Paper,2001,No 01-08.
[18]Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[19]Clark, B. R. The Entrepreneurial University:New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement[J]. Higher Education Management,2001,13(2):9-24.
[20]Clark, B. R Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university[J]. Higher Education Policy,2004,17(4):355-370.
[21]Clark, B. R, Sustaining change in universities:Continuities in case studies and concepts[J]. Tertiary Education and Management,2003,9(2):99-116.
[22]Clark, B. R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:Organizational Path-ways of Transformation[M]. Oxford, England:Pergamon,1998.
[23]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm[J].Economica,1937,4(16):386-405.
[24]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(2):157-182.
[25]Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D[J]. Economic Journal,1989,99(397):569-596.
[26]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal,D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and Innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[27]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.
[28]Conner, K. R. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organizational economics[J]. Journal of Management, 1991,17(1):121-154.
[29]Cowan, R., David, P. A., and Foray, D. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000,9(2):211-253.
[30]D'Este. P., Patel, P. University industry linkages in the UK:what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry[J]. Research Policy,2007,36 (9):1295-1313.
[31]Das, T. K. and Teng, B-S. Between Trust and Control:Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998,23 (3): 491-512.
[32]Dasgupta, P., David P. A. Patents, Priority and Imitation or, the Economics of Races and Waiting Games[J] The Economic Journal,1988,98(389):66-80.
[33]Dasgupta, P., David P. A.:Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology[C]. In Feiwel,G. R. (ed.):Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York:New York University Press,1987:510-542
[34]Dasgupta, P., David, P. A. Toward a new economics of science[J]. Research Policy,1994,23(5):487-521.
[35]Davenport, T. H. Prusak, L. Working Knowledge:How Organizations Manage What They Know [M]]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press
[36]David, C. M., Arvids,A.Z. Numbers, Quality, and Entry:How has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected US University Patenting and Licensing [J]. Innovation Policy and the Economy,2000(1):187-220.
[37]David, P. A. Understanding the emergence of'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2004,13(4):571-589.
[38]David, P. A. Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions [J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(2):15-21.
[39]Davies, H. Technology Transfer Through Commercial Transactions[J] The Journal of Industrial Economics,1977,26(2):161-175.
[40]Demsetz, H. The theory of the firm revisited[J]. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization.1988,4(1):141-161.
[41]Drucker, P. F. Post-Capitalist Society [M]. Boston:Harvard Business School Press, 1993.
[42]Drucker, P. F. Men, Ideas and Politics[M]. New York:Harpercollins,1971.
[43]Drucker, P. F. Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management[M]. Boston:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[44]Dyer, J. H., Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network:the Toyota case[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3): 345-367.
[45]Edquist, C. Systems of innovation technologies, institutions, and organizations [M]. London, Washington:Pinter,1997.
[46]Etzkowitz, H. and Webster, A. The future of the university.and the university of the future:evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm[J]. Research Policy,2000,29(2):313-330.
[47]Etzkowitz, H., MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science[M]. London:Routledge. 2002.
[48]Etzkowitz, H. Bridging the Gap:The Evolution of Industry-University Links in the United States, in:Branscomb, L. and Kodama, F. (Editors), Industrializing Knowledge:University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge: MIT Press,MA.1999.
[49]Etzkowitz, H., Klofsten, M. The innovating region:toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development[J]. R&D Management,2005.,35(3):243-255.
[50]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L, The dynamics of innovation:from National Systems and'Mode 2'to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations [J]. Research Pol icy,2000,29(2):109-123.
[51]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (Editors), Universities in the Global Economy:A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations[M]. London:Cassell Academic,1997:106-117.
[52]Etzkowitz, H. The norms of entrepreneurial science:cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages[J]. Research Policy,1998,27(8):823-833.
[53]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The Triple Helix:University-Industry-Government Relations:A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development [J]. EASST Review 1995,14(1):14-19.
[54]Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff. L. The endless transition:a Triple Helix of university industry government relations, Introduction to a theme issue [J]. Minerva 1998.36(Special issue):203-208.
[55]Etzkowitz, H. The Second Academic Revolution:MIT and The Rise of Entrepreneurial Science [M].New York:Gor2 don & Breach,2002.
[56]Etzkowitz. H, Healey. P, Webster. A. Capitalizing Knowledge:New Intersections Of Industry And Academia[M]. New York:State University Of New York Press,1998.
[57]European Commission. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relations-The Role of Framework Conditions[R]. Benchmarking Co-ordination Office,2001:33-38.
[58]Fabrizio, K. R.,Mowery,D. C. Defense-related R&D and the growth of the postwar information technology industrial complex in the United States [J]. Revue d' economie Industrielle,2005,112:27-44.
[59]Feller, I.,Ailes, C. P., Roessner, J. D. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry:evidence from engineering research centers[J]. Research Policy 2002,31(3):457-474.
[60]Fontana, R. Geuna, A. Matt, M. Firm Size and Openness:the Driving Forces of University Industry Collaboration[R]. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 103,2003.
[61]Foray, D. The Economics of Knowledge[M]. Cambridge:MIT press,2004.
[62]Foss, N. A market-process approach to corporate coherence[J]. Managerial and Decision Economics,2001,22(4-5):213-226.
[63]Freeman, C. Technology Policy and Economic Performance:Lesson from Japan[M]. London:Frances Pinter.1987.
[64]Freeman, C. The National System of Innovation in Historical Perspective[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1995,19(1):5-24.
[65]Freeman, C., Japan:A New National System of Innovation, in G. Dosi et al. (Eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, London:Pinter,1988.
[66]Frieder, M. K., Ulrich, S. Science-based technologies:university-industry interactions in four fields[J]. Research Policy,1998,27 (8):35-851.
[67]Galunic, D. C. and Rodan, S. Resource recombination in the firm:knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(12):1193-1201.
[68]Georghiou, L. Global cooperation in research[J]. Research Policy,1998,27(6): 611-626
[69]Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, C., Scott, P. and Trow, M. The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society[M]. London:Sage Publications.1994
[70]Gibbons, M. Johnston, R. The roles of science in technological innovation[J] Research Policy,1974,3(3):220-242.
[71]Gibbons, M. Science's new social contract with society[J]. Nature,1999,402(2): 81-84.
[72]Gittelman, M., Kogut, B. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns [J]. Management Science,2002,49 (4):336.
[73]Glaser,B. Organizational Scientists:Their professional careers[M]. New York: Bobbs-Merril company.1964.
[74]Godin, B., Gingras, Y. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production[J]. Research Policy,2000,29(2):273-278.
[75]Goldfarb, B., Marschke, G., Smith, A. Scholarship and Inventive Activity in the University:Complements or Substitutes[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2009,18(8):743-756.
[76]Grant R M. The knowledge-based view of the firm:Implications for management practice[J]. Long Range Planning,June 1997,30(3):450-454.
[77]Grant, R. M.. Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):109-122.
[78]Grant, R. M. Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments:Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration[J]. Organization Science,1996,7(4):375-387.
[79]Griliches, Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth[J]. Bell Journal of Economics,1979,10(1):92-116.
[80]Griliches, Z. Productivity, R and D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970's, American Economic Review[J].1986,76(1):141-154.
[81]Griliches, Z. R&D and Productivity:Econometric Results and Measurement Issues, In From Stoneman, P. Ed. Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Oxford:Blackwell,1995:53-89.
[82]Guellec, D., Pottelsberghe, V. A. The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D[R].OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,2000.4.
[83]Hall, B. H., Link, A. N.,. Scott, J. T. Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities, Journal of Technology Transfer [J].2001),26(1-2):87-98.
[84]Harris, D. Creating a Knowledge Centric Information Technology Environment [EB/OL]. http://www. dbharris. com/ckc. htm,2009-05-06.
[85]Hayek, F. A. Sensory Order[M], Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1952.
[86]Hayek, F. A., The Use of Knowledge in Society[J]. American Economic Review, 1945,35(4):519-530.
[87]Hayek, F. A. Economics and Knowledge[J]. Economica,1937,4(13):33-54.
[88]Hayek, F. A. The Sensory Orde[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1952.
[89]Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. Universities as a source of commercial technology:a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,1998,80(1):119-127.
[90]Hessels, L. K. and Lente, H. V Re-thinking new knowledge production:A literature review and a research agenda[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(4):740-760.
[91]Hicks, D. Published papers,tacit competencies and corporate management of the public-private character of knowledge [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change1995,4(2): 401-424.
[92]Hicks, D. The changing science and technology environment, in Teich, A. H., Nelson, S. D.,Lita, S. J. (Eds),AAS Science and Technology Yearbook, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington:DC,2002:255-365.
[93]Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S, Banks, B. A. Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation[J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):183-205.
[94]Jaffe, A. B. Real Effects of Academic Research[J]. American Economic Review,1989, 79(5):957-970.
[95]Jencks, C., Riesman, D. The Academic Revolution[M]. New York:Doubleday,1968.
[96]Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B-K. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(5):680-693.
[97]Kingston, W. Innovation needs patents reforms [J], Research Policy 2001,30(3): 403-423.
[98]Kogut, B., Zander. U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization Science,1992.3(3):383-397.
[99]Kogut, B. The Network as Knowledge:Generative Rules and the Emergence of Structure[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):405-425.
[100]Kor, Y.Y., Mahoney, J. T. How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,26(5):489-496.
[101]Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5):461-477.
[102]Lee, S. and Choi,B. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance:An Integrative View and Empirical Examination[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems,2003,20(1):179-228.
[103]Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. Emergence of a Triple Helix of University Industry Government Relations [J]. Science and Public Policy,1996(23):279-286.
[104]Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies[J]. Science and Public Policy,1998,25(3):195-203.
[105]Liebeskind, J. P. Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):93-107.
[106]Liu, T. L., Shou, I. Enhancement of customer network relationship via governance mechanism of inter-organizational core resource and core knowledge strategic alliance[J]. The Journal of American Academy of Business,2004,5(1-2):220-230.
[107]Lundvall, B.-A Product innovation and user-producer interaction[M]. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.1985.
[108]Lundvall, B-A and Johnson, B. The learning economy[J]. Journal of Industry Studies,1994,1(2):23-42.
[109]Lundvall, B-A. Innovation as an interactive process:from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation, in:Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (Editors), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London,1988:349-369.
[110]Lundvall, B-A. National Innovation Systems:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning[M]. London:Pinter.1992.
[111]Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R.,Akgun, A. E. Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2000,47 (2):221-31.
[112]Machlup, F. Knowledge:its creation, distribution, and economic significance [M].New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984.
[113]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation[J]. Research Policy,1991,20(1):1-12.
[114]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation:An update of empirical findings[J]. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8):773-776.
[115]Martin, B, R,, Irvine, J. Internal criteria for scientific choice:An evaluation of research in high-energy physics using electron accelerators[J] Minerva 1981,19(3):408-432.
[116]Martin, B. R., Etzkowitz, H. The Origin and Evolution of the University Species[J]. Journal for Science and Technology Studies,2000,13(3-4):9-34.
[117]McMillan, G. S, Narin, F. Deeds, D.L. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation:the case of biotechnology Research Policy,2000,29(1):1-8.
[118]Merton,R.Priorities in Scientific Discovery:A Chapter in the Sociology of Science[J]. American Sociological Review,1957,22(6):635-659,
[119]Merton,R.The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[M]. Edited by Norman Storer. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[120]Merton, R.. A Note on Science and Democracy[J]. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1942(1):115-126
[121]Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[M]. Chicago IL:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[122]Metcalfe, J. S. The economic foundations of technology policy:equilibrium and evolutionary perspective. In:Stoneman, P. Editor. Handbook of Industrial Innovation, London:Blackwell,1995.
[123]Metcalfe, S. "The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy:Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives",in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford(UK)/Cambridge (US).1995.
[124]Motohashi, K. University-industry collaborations in Japan:The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System[M]. Research Policy,2005,34(5):583-594.
[125]Mowery, D. C., Ziedonis, A. A. Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States[J]. Research Policy,2000,31(3): 399-418.
[126]Murray, F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering[J]. Research Policy,2002,31(8-9):1389-1403.
[127]Nelson, R. R. Institutions supporting technical advance in industry[J]. The American Economic Review,1986.76(2):186-189.
[128]Nelson, R. R. National Innovation Systems:A Comparative Analysis [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1993.
[129]Nelson, R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research [J]. The Journal of Political Economy,1959,67(3):297-306.
[130]Nelson, R. R. The market economy and the scientific commons [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(3):455-471.
[131]Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M]. Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1982.
[132]Nelson, R. R. Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process[M]. Amsterdam:North Holland,1987.
[133]Nickerson, J. and Zenger, T. A knowledge-based theory of the firm:the problem-solving perspective[J]. Organization Science,2004,15(6):617-632.
[134]Nonaka I, Toyama R and Nagataa A firm as a knowledge creating entity:a new perspective on the theory of the firm[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000.9(1): 1-20.
[135]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science,1994,5(1):14-37.
[136]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge Creating Company:How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. London:Oxford University Press,1995.
[137]Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. A firm as a dialectic being.:toward the dynamic theory of the firm[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change (2002,11(5):995-1109.
[138]Nonaka, I. Managing innovation as an organizational knowledge creation process. In Allouche, J. and Pogorel, G. (Eds), Technology Management and Corporate Strategies:A Tricontinental Perspective. Amsterdam:Elsevier,1995:73-109.
[139]Nonaka, I. SECI, Ba and Leadership:a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation[J]. Long Range Planning,2000,33(1):5-34.
[140]Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. Re-thinking Science:Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty[M]. London:Polity Press,2001.
[141]Nuvolari,A. Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine Cambridge Journal of Economics 2004,28 (3):347-363
[142]OECD. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships[R]. OECD Publishing,Paris, 2002.
[143]OECD. Knowledge Management in a Learning Society[R]. OECD Publications, Paris, 2000.
[144]OECD. National Innovation Systems[R]. OECD Publications, Paris,1997.
[145]OECD. The Knowledge-Based Economy[R]. OECD Publications, Paris,1996.
[146]Oliver, C. Determinants of interorganizational relationships:'integration and future directions[J]. Academy of Management Review,1990,15(2):241-65.
[147]Osland, G. E, Yaprak, A. Learning through strategic alliances:processes and factors that enhance marketing effectiveness[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 1995,29(3):52-66.
[148]Pavitt, K. The social shaping of the national science base[J]. Research Policy,1998.27(8):793-805.
[149]Pavitt, K. What makes basic research economically useful[J]. Research Policy,1991,20(2):109-119.
[150]Penrose, E. T. The Theory of Growth of the Firm[M]. London:Basil Blackwell,1959.
[151]Polanyi, M. The republic of science[J].Minerva,1962,1:54-74.
[152]Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy [M]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1958.
[153]Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Reprinted 1983 by Peter Smith, Gloucester
[154]Polanyi,M. Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post Critical Philosophy[M]. London: Routledge.1958.
[155]Polanyi, M. The Republic of Science:Its Political and Economic Theory[J]. Minerva 1962 (1):54-74.
[156]Premus, P. University knowledge production and industrial innovation:the
evidence[J] International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 2003,2 (3):263-273.
[157]Purser, R. E. Pasmore, W. A. Organizing for Learning[J]. Research in Organizational Change and Development,1992, (6):37-114.
[158]Qunitas, P. Knowledge Management:A Strategic Agenda [J]. Long Range Planning, 1997,30 (3):385-391.
[159]Romer, P. M. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94(5):1002-1037.
[160]Romer, P.M. Endogenous Technological Change[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(5):71-102.
[161]Romer, P. M. The Origins of Endogenous Growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(1):3-22.
[162]Rosenberg, N. Birdzell, L. E., Science, Technology and the Western Miracle [J]. Scientific American,1990,263(5),42-45.
[163]Rosenberg, N. How exogenous is science? In:Rosenberg, N. (Ed.), Inside the Black Box. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1982.
[164]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research with their own money[J]. Research Policy,1990,19(2):165-174.
[165]Sabato, J., and Mackenzi, M., La produccion de technologia. Autonoma transnacional (Nueva Imagen, Mexico).1982
[166]Sabato, J. El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problematica ciencia-technologia-desarrollo-dependencia (Paidos, Buenos Aires).1975.
[167]Salter.A. J., Martin, B. R..The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research:a critical review Research Policy,2001,30(3):509-532.
[168]Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A. K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(7):1163-1180.
[169]Saviotti, P. and Nooteboom, B., Technology and Knowledge:From the Firm to Innovation Systems[M]. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.2000.
[170]Saxenian, A. Regional advantage:Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1994.
[171]Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., Frohlich, J. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria:sectoral patterns and determinants [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(3):303-328
[172]Senker, J. Tacit knowledge and models of innovation [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,1995,4 (2):425-447.
[173]Shapira, P,Youtie,J. University-Industry Relationships:Creating and Commercializing Knowledge in Georgia, USA, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia,2004.
[174]Simon, H. A. Models of bounded rationality. Behavioral Economics and Business Organization [M]. Cambridge, MA:Vol.2, MIT Press,.1951.
[175]Simon, H. B. The Sciences of the Artificial [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press 1969.
[176]Smith, H. L. Universities, innovation and the economy [M]. London:Routledge, 2006.
[177]Spender J. C., Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm:overview [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):5-9.
[178]Spender, J. C. Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issues):45-62.
[179]Steffensen. M., Rogers, E. M., Speakman,K. Spin-offs from Research Centers at a Research University [J ]Journal of Business Venturing,1999,15(1):93-111.
[180]Stephan, P. E. The Economics of Science [J] Journal of Economic Literature,1996, 34(3):1199-1235.
[181]Stokes, D. Pasteur's Quadrant:Basic Science and Technological Innovation. [M]. Washington, DC:Brookings Press,1996.
[182]Sutz, J. The university-industry-government relations in Latin America[J]. Research Policy, Volume 2000,29(2):279-290.
[183]Teece, D. J. Capturing value from knowledge assets:the new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. [J]. California Management Review 1998,40(3): 55-79.
[184]Teece, D. J. Prof iting from technological innovation[J]. Research Policy,1986, 15(6):285-305.
[185]Teece, D., Pisano, G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. In: Dosi, G., Teece, D. J., Chytry, J. (Eds.), Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness. Oxford.:Oxford University Press,1998.
[186]Teece, D. J. Managing Intellectual Capital[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000
[187]Toffler, A. The Third Wave[M]. New York:Bantam Books.1980.
[188]Tyre, M. J., von Hippel, E. The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations. Organization Science,1997,8(1):71-83.
[189]Urabe, K. Innovation and the Japanese management system. In:K. Urabe, J. Child and T. Kagono, Editors, Innovation and management international comparisons, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,1988.
[190]Varga, A. Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity[J]. Journal of Regional Science (2000),40(2):289-309.
[191]Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23(5-6):355-379.
[192]von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process[J]. Research Policy,1976,5(3):212-239.
[193]Von Hipple, E.Lead users:a source of novel product concepts[J].Management Science,1986,32(7):791-805.
[194]Von Hipple,E. The dominant role of users in semiconductor and electronic subassembly process innovation[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1977,24(2):60-71.
[195]Von. Hipple, E. Sticky Information and The Locus of Problem Solving; Implication for Innovation[J].Management Science,1994,40(4):429-439.
[196]Weingart, P. From'Finalization'to'Mode 2':Old Wine in New Bottles?[J]. Social Science Information,1997,36(4):591-614.
[197]Williams, T. Cooperation by design:structure and cooperation in inter organizational networks[J]Journal of Business Research,2005,58(2):223-231.
[198]Williamson,O. E. Markets and Hierarchies:Analysis and Antitrust Implications, a Study in the Economics of Internal Organization[M]. New York:Free Press.1975.
[199]Williamson,O. E. Reflections on the New Institutional Economics [J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,1985,11(1):187-195.
[200]Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M. Mid-range universities' linkages with industry:Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries [J]Research Policy,2008,37(8):1205-1223.
[201]Youtie, J., Shapira, P, Building an innovation hub:A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development Research Policy,2008,37(8):1188-1204.
[202]Ziman, J. Real Science:What it is and What it Means[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[203]Ziman, J. Prometheus bound:Science in a dynamic steady state[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[204]Zucker,G. L., Darby,M. R., Brewer, M. Intellectual capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises[J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(1):290-306.
[205]Zucker, L., Darby, M., Furner, J., Liu, R. C., Ma, H. Minerva unbound:Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production[J]. Research Policy,2007, 36(6):850-863.
[206]OECD.研究与发展调查手册,第5版,弗拉斯卡蒂丛书,科技部发展计划司,中国科技指标研究会主编,北京：新华出版社,2000a.
[207]OECD.技术创新调查手册(Oslo手册)第2版,弗拉斯卡蒂丛书,科技部发展计划司,中国科技指标研究会主编,北京：新华出版社,2000b.
[208]埃茨科维兹,周春彦.区域创新发动者：不同三螺旋模式下的创业型大学[C].第六届国际三螺旋大会主题论文,新加坡,2007.5.
[209]别敦荣等.大学推行学研产“一体化”的思考[J].高等教育研究,2002(1)：53-56.
[210]伯顿·克拉克(美)著,王承绪等译.高等教育系统：学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994.4.
[211]陈劲,朱朝晖.我国企业技术创新国际化的资源配置模式研究[J].科研管理,2003.24(5)：76-83.
[212]陈劲.新形势下产学研战略联盟创新与发展研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版,2009.
[213]陈翔峰.我国开展产学研合作的理论与实践研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[214]丁厚德.产学研合作是建设国家创新体系的基本国策[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(3)：50-54.
[215]樊春良.科学和技术政策研究进展[J].中国科学院院刊,2006,21(3)：234-239.
[216]符正平.西方企业理论研究中的三大科学研究纲领[J].经济学动态,1998.3
[217]郭斌.知识经济下产学合作的模式、机制与绩效评价[M].北京：科学出版社出版,2007.
[218]郭晓川.合作技术创新：大学与企业合作的理论和实证[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2001.
[219]汉森(美)著,冯大鸣译.教育管理与组织行为[M].上海：上海教育出版社,第5版,2005：73-77.
[220]胡恩华,郭秀丽.我国产学研合作创新中存在的问题及对策研究[J].科学管理研究,2002(2)：69-72.
[221]胡恩华.产学研合作创新中的问题及对策研究[J].研究与发展管理,2001.
[222]黄胜杰,张毅.我国产学研合作的组织模式及其网络特性探析[J].高等工程教育研究,2002(6)：30-33.
[223]贾根良,刘辉锋.科学经济学的兴起与最新发展[J].国外社会科学,2003,2：32-38.
[224]江积海,宣国良.企业知识传导与知识边界研究[J].情报科学,2005,23(1)：7-13.
[225]姜照华.科技进步在经济增长中的贡献率的测算方法与提高策略[M].哈尔滨：哈尔滨工业大学出版社,1996.
[226]蒋翠清,杨善林.知识创新与企业知识资产形成机理研究[J].中国科技论坛,2006,5：82-86.
[227]康全礼,田恩舜.地方高校在产学研合作中的定位问题[J].高等教育研究,2002(1)：58-63.
[228]李廉水.论产学研合作创新的组织方式[J].科研管理,1998,1(1)：30-33.
[229]李醒民.科学发现的优先权问题[N].北京科技报,1986.7.30.
[230]连燕华,马晓光.2001我国产学研合作发展态势评价[J].新材料产业,2001(3)：35-39.
[231]刘德智.工业企业技术创新产学研合作障碍研究[J].经济与管理研究,2001(1)：38-41
[232]刘广明.大学边界的形成与功能：组织社会学的视角[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2008,41(3)104-107.
[233]刘力.产学研合作的历史比较与现状研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2001.
[234]鲁若愚.企业大学合作创新机理研究[D].博士学位论文,清华大学,2002.
[235]路甬祥.创新与未来[M].北京：科学出版社,1998.
[236]吕海军,甘志霞.产学研合作创新研究述评及研究展望[J].生产力研究,2005,4.
[237]穆容平,赵兰香.产学研合作中若干问题思考[J].科技管理研究,1998,2：34-35.
[238]潘懋元等.发挥大学中心作用促进知识经济发展[J].教育发展研究,1999(6)：1-5.
[239]彭宜新,邹珊刚.从研究到创业—大学职能的演变[J].自然辩证法研究,2003,19(4)：44-48.
[240]苏敬勤.产学研合作创新的交易成本及内外部化条件[J].科研管理,1999,9(5)：68-71.
[241]孙天华.大学边界扩张的经济学分析[J].中国人民大学学报,2004,(5)：147-151.
[242]唐玮.大学-企业知识联盟建设中的政府作用研究[D].硕士学位论文,上海交通大学,2007.
[243]汪丁丁.知识沿时间和空间的互补性以及相关的经济学[J].经济研究,1997,6：70-78.
[244]汪忠,黄瑞华.基于知识视角的企业边界问题研究[J].科学管理研究,2005,23(2)：61-65.
[245]王建安.企业作为一种知识产权保护系统[J].科研管理,2002,23(2)：83-93.
[246]王建华.大学边界论J].清华大学教育研究,2006,27(6)：18-25.
[247]王雁,孔寒冰,王沛民,2003.创业型大学：研究型大学的挑战与机遇[J].高等教育研究,2003(5)：52-56.
[248]王雁,孔寒冰,王沛民2005两次学术革命与大学的两次转型《浙江大学学报》2005,35(3)：162-167.
[249]王雁.创业型大学-美国研究型大学模式变革的研究[D],博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.12.
[250]王毅,吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究[J].科研管理,2001,11(6)：114-121
[251]温正胞,谢芳芳.学术资本主义：创业型大学的组织特性[J].教育发展研究,2009,5：28-33.
[252]吴忠泽.加强产学研结合推动企业自主创新[J].中国高校科技与产业化,2006,8：56-58.
[253]谢开勇.国外高校产学研合作模式分析[J].中国科技论坛,2004(1)：119-122.
[254]余培果等.产学研联合技术创新存在问题的分析[J].中国科技论坛,2001(1)：21-24.
[255]余雅风,郑晓齐.大学—企业协同技术创新的资源标准[J].科学管理研究,2002(1)：4-6.
[256]周春彦,埃茨科威兹.三螺旋创新模式的理论探讨[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版)2008,10(4)：300-304.
[257]周春彦.大学- 产业- 政府三螺旋创新模式—亨利·埃茨科维兹《三螺旋》评介[J].自然辩证法研究,2006,22(4)：75—78.