Scholarlink

<p>Universities are increasingly expected to translate research into economic and social value, yet the policy designs through which they govern technology transfer vary across higher education systems. This study compares 695 currently operative institutional documents on university technology transfer from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China. Using text mining, rule-based coding, and manual content analysis, it examines five governance dimensions: transfer modalities, funding mechanisms, ownership and IP governance, organizational arrangements, and revenue distribution. The findings show convergence in the centrality of IP protection and researcher incentives, but also complicate simple state-versus-market typologies. U.S. universities combine market coordination with public accountability and professionalized intermediation; U.K. universities link commercialization to impact-oriented accountability infrastructures; Australia relies on procedural, partnership-based, TTO-centered coordination; and China combines state steering with high inventor rewards and selective market-style mechanisms. Across systems, revenue distribution is not the dominant governance signal; policy attention concentrates more strongly on IP governance, transfer pathways, and organizational coordination. The study offers a configurational account of technology transfer governance, showing how universities adapt to innovation pressures through nationally differentiated combinations of state, market, and academic logics.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Formalizing University Technology Transfer Governance in the Knowledge Economy: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Policy Designs in the US, UK, Australia, and China

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Chunshun Yan,
  • Tianyi Sun,
  • Mengting Qian

摘要

Universities are increasingly expected to translate research into economic and social value, yet the policy designs through which they govern technology transfer vary across higher education systems. This study compares 695 currently operative institutional documents on university technology transfer from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China. Using text mining, rule-based coding, and manual content analysis, it examines five governance dimensions: transfer modalities, funding mechanisms, ownership and IP governance, organizational arrangements, and revenue distribution. The findings show convergence in the centrality of IP protection and researcher incentives, but also complicate simple state-versus-market typologies. U.S. universities combine market coordination with public accountability and professionalized intermediation; U.K. universities link commercialization to impact-oriented accountability infrastructures; Australia relies on procedural, partnership-based, TTO-centered coordination; and China combines state steering with high inventor rewards and selective market-style mechanisms. Across systems, revenue distribution is not the dominant governance signal; policy attention concentrates more strongly on IP governance, transfer pathways, and organizational coordination. The study offers a configurational account of technology transfer governance, showing how universities adapt to innovation pressures through nationally differentiated combinations of state, market, and academic logics.