Patentes e innovación social en las Universidades Públicas Estatales de México

Elisa Calderón-Altamirano; Eva Grissel Castro Coria; Liliana Getzali Pérez-Munguía

doi:10.5281/zenodo.15778549

Autores/as

Elisa Calderón-Altamirano Universidad Veracruzana
Eva Grissel Castro Coria Instituto Michoacano de Ciencias de la Educación (IMCED)
Liliana Getzali Pérez-Munguía Facultad de arquitectura en la Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15778549

Palabras clave:

análisis cualitativo comparado, pertinencia social, transferencia tecnológica, Universidades Públicas Estatales de México

Resumen

The transfer of technology from universities to society has acquired a strategic role in promoting economic and social development, particularly following the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, which enabled universities to protect and commercialize intellectual property funded with public resources. In Mexico, State Public Universities (SPUs) possess the autonomy to define their own academic trajectories, allowing them to align their core functions with the social needs of the regions where they operate. This research aims to identify the necessary and/or sufficient conditions that foster technology transfer processes with significant social impact (TTPSI) within SPUs. To this end, the study employs Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), a methodological approach suitable for determining the conditions that enable these transfer processes to succeed. The results reveal that university social responsibility (USR) emerges as the only necessary condition to explain TTPSI. In contrast, the conditions related to innovative development capabilities (IDC), engagement capabilities (EC), and institutional capabilities (IC) fail to meet the consistency criterion as necessary conditions. These findings underscore the relevance of designing institutional policies that focus on social impact, beyond the mere number of patents generated or agreements signed with the productive sector.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Alvarado, L.R.A. (2020). La universidad pública ante el COVID-19: El caso de la Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro. Debates sobre Innovación, 5(1): 1-6.

Arechavala, R. (2011). Sistemas regionales de innovación en México y Canadá: una comparación de retos en el desarrollo de la innovación tecnológica. Revista de la Educación Superior, 42, 41-57.

Bercovitz, J. y Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z

Bozeman, B., Rimes, H. y Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008

Calderón-Altamirano, E. y Rodríguez, J.C. (2023). Transferencia de tecnología universidad-industria en las universidades públicas estatales de México: Un análisis configuracional. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 18(4), 18-30. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-27242023000400018

Chaminade, C. y Vang, J. (2008). Globalisation of knowledge production and regional innovation policy: Supporting specialized hubs in the Bangalore software industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1684-1696. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.014

Cobo-Gómez, J. (2023). Social innovation in the Latin-America University Context (tesis doctoral). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Recuperado de: http://hdl.handle.net/10554/65594

Cronqvist, L. y Berg-Schlosser, D. (2008). Multi-value QCA (mvQ-CA). En: Rihoux, B. y Ragin, C., Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government innovation in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929605

Etzkowitz, H. y 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(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Geuna, A. (2001). The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632. DOI:10.1080/00213624.2001.1150639

Hindle, K. y Yencken, J. (2004). Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology-based firms: an integrated model. Technovation, 24, 793-803. DOI:10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00023-3

Link, A. y Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106-1112. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.015

Menter, M. (2024). From technological to social innovation: toward a mission-reorientation of entrepreneurial universities. Journal Technol Transfer, 49, 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-023-10002-4

Molina-Sánchez, R. y García, P. (2020). Study of Competences Required for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation: Comparative Case of Different Mexican Universities. En R. Pérez-Uribe, D. Ocampo-Guzman, C. Salcedo-Pérez, L. Piñeiro-Cortes, y M. Ramírez-Salazar (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Increasing the Competitiveness of SMEs (pp. 493-515). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-9425-3.ch022

Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. y Ziedonis, A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6

Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145-162. DOI: 10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. y Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. En: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) & The Young Foundation. London, UK.

Nlemvo, F., Pimay, F. y Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281-289. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00019-0

Nugent, R. y Keusch, G. (2010). Salud mundial: Lecciones de la Ley Bayh-Dole. En Gestión de la propiedad intelectual e innovación en agricultura y en salud: Un manual de buenas prácticas. Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA) y Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA).

Parente, T. y Federo, R. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis: justifying a neo-configurational approach in management research. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 399-412. DOI:10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0089

Ragin, C. (2008a). Measurement versus Calibration: A Set-Theore-tic Approach. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology.

Ragin, C. (2008b). Redesigning Social Inquiry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Ragin, C. y Sean, D. 2022. Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 4.0. Irvine, California: Department of Sociology, University of California.

Schneider, C. y Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397-418

Siegel, D., Waldmann, D. y Link, A. (2003). A financial sustainability review: change and adaption in the voluntary sector as the economy recovers. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.

Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. y Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115-142. Doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006

SEP (2019). Secretaría de Educación Pública. Instituciones de Educación Superior. https://www.educacionsuperior.sep.gob.mx/institu-ciones.html

Tushman, M. y O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. DOI: 10.2307/41165852

Vohora, A., Wright, M. y Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147-175. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0

Woodside, A. (2016). Bad to Good: Achieving High Quality and Impact in Your Research. Emerald, Bingley.

Woodside, A. y Zhang, M. (2012). Identifying X-Consumers Using Causal Recipes: “Whales” and “Jumbo Shrimps”. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 13-26. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-011-9241-5