SCIENCE COMMUNICATION ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY IN LATVIA

Justīne Vīķe

doi:10.12955/cbup.v4.809

Justīne Vīķe Rīga Stradiņš University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v4.809

Keywords: Science communication, commercialization, R&D, R&I, RRI, technology transfer

Abstract

Transfer of results of scientific research to society for discussion and consumption is nowadays one of scientists’ responsibilities. Along with the change of roles of scientific institutions, scientists have also become obliged to distribute results of scientific research, not only within their own community, but also to the part of society that does not consist of specialists in the respective field of research, and that consists of potential consumers of the results of scientific research, including industry as potential commercializers of the research result.

The objective of the research was the identification of factors affecting the transfer of results of scientific research to industry (commercialization of science) and the science communication process. Both secondary and primary data were used in the research. Primary data was acquired by semi-structured interviews with experts from industry, university and government.

Several factors affecting the commercialization of science have been identified in the situation of Latvia. There is no motivational system for scientists regarding the organization of science communication in Latvia, but the science communication role is essential for cooperation between university and industry.

References

Bielak, A. T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer K., & Shaxson, L. (2008). From science communication to knowledge brokering: the shift from ‘science push’ to ‘policy pull’. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts, 201-226. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7

Björk, B. C. (2007). A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 1-47. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1797&context=iatul

Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy, 38, 281-292. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.006

Callagher, L., Horst, M., & Husted, K. (2015). Exploring societal responses towards managerial prerogative in entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Learning and Change, 8(1), 64-82. DOI: 10.1504/IJLC.2015.069074

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production 1 in quadruple helix innovation systems. Springer Briefs in Business, 7, 1-64. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183-216. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.004

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science with and for Society (2015). Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. European Commission.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.

Günsel, A. (2015). Research on effectiveness of technology transfer from a knowledge based perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 777-785. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.165

Hornig Priest, S. (2008). Linking theory and practice. Science Communication, 30(1), 5-7.

Huňady, J., & Orviská, M. (2014). The impact of research and development expenditures on innovation performance and economic growth of the country - the empirical evidence. CBU International Conference on Innovation, Technology Transfer and Education, 119-125. Prague, Czech Republic

Jucan, S. M., & Jucan, C. N. (2014). The power of science communication. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 461-466. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288

Kunda, I. (2011). Augstskolu lomas 21. gadsimta sakumā: no autonomijas līdz sabiedriskajai iesaistei. In T. Tisenkopfs, B. Bela, & I. Kunda (Eds.), Augstskolas reģionos: Zināšanu un prakses mijiedarbe [Universities in the 21st century : from autonomy to public involvement . In T. Tisenkopfs , Bela B. , & I. Kunda ( Eds . ) , University areas : knowledge and practices of interaction], 40-77, Rīga, Zinātne.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). Innovation Policy Platform: “Innovation vouchers”. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/innovation/policyplatform/48135973.pdf

Office of Science and Technology, the Wellcome Trust (2000). Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. London, Department of Trade, Industry and the Trustee of the Wellcome Trust.

Rogers, E. M. (2002). The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication, 23(3), 323-341.

The Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia (2016). Sākotnējais novērtējums: 1.2.1.specifiskā atbalsta mērķa “Palielināt privātā sektora investīcijas P&A” 1.2.1.2.pasākuma “Atbalsts tehnoloģiju pārneses sistēmas pilnveidošanai” [An assessment: 1.2.1. “To increase private sector investment in R&D" 1.2.1.2. “Support for technology transfer system development”] Rīga.

Vīķe, J. (2014). Barjeras zinātnisko izstrādņu komercializēšanas procesā latvijā [Barriers in commercialization process of scientific inventions in Latvia]. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conferences of Faculty of Social Sciences of Daugavpils University. Part I. Issues of Sociology. Daugavpils University, 84-91.