How Academic Researchers Select Collaborative Research Projects: A Choice Experiment

The Journal of Technology Transfer (2021) 46:1917–1948
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09833-2
How academic researchers select collaborative research

projects: a choice experiment
Frank J. van Rijnsoever1,2 · Laurens K. Hessels3,4
Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published online: 21 November 2020

© The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Although many studies have been conducted on the drivers of and barriers to research col‑
laborations, current literature provides limited insights into the ways in which individual
researchers choose to engage in different collaborative projects. Using a choice experiment,
we studied the factors that drive this choice using a representative sample of 3145 research‑
ers from Western Europe and North America who publish in English. We find that for
most researchers, the expected publication of research in scientific journals deriving from
a project is the most decisive factor driving their collaboration choices. Moreover, most
respondents prefer to collaborate with other partners than industry. However, different fac‑
tors’ influence varies across groups of researchers. These groups are characterised as going
for the ‘puzzle’ (60% of the sample), the ‘ribbon’ (33%) or the ‘gold’ (8%), i.e., primarily
oriented toward intellectual goals, recognition or money, respectively. This heterogeneity
shows that a combination of interventions will be required for governments aiming to pro‑
mote university–industry collaborations.
Keywords University–industry interaction · Research collaboration · Choice experiment ·

Academic engagement
JEL Classification O31 · O38
* Frank J. van Rijnsoever

F.j.vanrijnsoever@uu.nl
Laurens K. Hessels
l.hessels@rathenau.nl
1
Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University,
Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
INGENIO (CSIC‑UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
3
Rathenau Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands
4
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1918 F. J. van Rijnsoever, L. K. Hessels
1 Introduction
What makes university researchers decide to collaborate with industry rather than with
partners in academia or in the public sector? Despite encouragement from university man‑
agement and public policies (Boardman et al. 2012; Martin 2011; Tseng et al. 2020), a
large share of academic researchers remains cautious about engaging with industry (Nature
Index 2017). This hesitation is due partly to concerns about research integrity, reproduc‑
ibility, academic freedom (Davis et al. 2011; Jasny et al. 2017; Tartari and Breschi 2012)
and possible neglect of more fundamental research (Salter and Martin 2001; Ziman 2002).
Furthermore, researchers are subject to the academic competitive selection environment,
which is dominated by considerations concerning academic excellence, high-impact jour‑
nal articles and collaborations with reputable academic partners (Blind et al. 2018; Boze‑
man et al. 2013; Sauermann and Roach 2016). Although some evidence indicates that col‑
laboration with industry can promote academic careers (Cañibano et al. 2019; Dietz and
Bozeman 2005; Sauermann and Stephan 2013; Wright et al. 2014), such collaboration
often is perceived as coming at the expense of traditional academic output and collabora‑
tion between academics (Clark 2011). Finally, academic researchers’ willingness to collab‑
orate with industry also depends on their personal (intrinsic) motivations and goals (D’Este
et al. 2018; Lam 2011; Perkmann et al. 2013), such as contributing to sustainability or
satisfying their curiosity.
To achieve their personal goals while also acquiring sufficient resources to fund their
activities, researchers need to make strategic choices about which research projects to
engage in, and with whom. The extensive literature on research collaborations and tech‑
nology transfer provides many insights into the drivers of and barriers to engaging with
industry (D’este and Perkmann 2011; de Wit-de Vries et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Lee
2019, 2000; Owen-Smith and Powell 2001; Perkmann et al. 2013; Van Rijnsoever et al.
2008). However, research has yet to examine how personal motivations and goals moderate
the factors influencing researchers’ collaboration choices at the level of specific research
projects. This lack of knowledge inhibits the development of effective policy instruments to
promote university–industry collaboration.
Thus, in this paper, we ask the following research question: ‘What factors drive the
choice of researchers to engage in collaborative research projects?’ We surveyed a repre‑
sentative sample of 3145 researchers from Western Europe and North America who pub‑
lish in English across all scientific disciplines. The survey contained a choice experiment,
with choice tasks from which respondents selected their preferences. These choice tasks
represented hypothetical collaborative research projects that varied in terms of possible
project and research process outcomes. Through a latent class analysis, we inductively cap‑
tured researchers’ differing motivations and showed how these motivations moderate pro‑
ject-level factors that influence their collaboration choices (Hensher et al. 2005; Vermunt
and Magidson 2002).
Our paper makes two significant contributions. First, we show that increasing aca‑
demic excellence and career advancement, particularly with scientific publications, exert
the greatest influence on choosing collaborative research projects. We nuance this find‑
ing by showing how different project-level factors’ influence differs between groups that
were identified in earlier studies, termed the puzzle, the ribbon and the gold (Lam 2011;
Stephan and Levin 1992). Second, our method complements existing studies on this topic.
Most studies have derived drivers of collaboration from public data sets, such as on funded
projects (D’Este et al. 2012; Jeong et al. 2013), publications (Hoekman et al. 2010; Jeong
13
How academic researchers select collaborative research… 1919
et al. 2011) or patents (Crescenzi et al. 2017; Murgia 2018), which often are limited by
the amount of data about individual researchers. Other studies rely on survey data to study
collaboration choices (D’Este and Patel 2007; Lam 2011; Lee 2000; Tartari et al. 2014;
Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008), which register lower internal validity (Campbell and Stanley
1966) and often are limited to the context of a single country or institution (Perkmann
et al. 2013). In choice experiments, the level of the independent variable is given by the
experimental design, which remedies this shortcoming (Van Rijnsoever et al. 2012). There‑
fore, our study provides a more complete and reliable overview of collaboration drivers in
research projects.
In the remainder of this paper, we outline the factors that, according to extant litera‑
ture, most likely influence collaboration choices. We make a distinction between a project’s
expected benefits on one hand and project-specific factors on the other. We then proceed to
discuss our methodology, after which we present our results, conclusion and implications.
2 Theoretical background
Social studies of science show that academic researchers’ collaboration behaviour can be
explained by their expectations of their work’s output and benefits. Their efforts can be
understood as investments that they make to generate products that help acquire peer rec‑
ognition and attract funding for new projects (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Van Rijnsoever
et al. 2008). In this perspective, scientific collaboration can serve as a means to obtain
access to additional resources, such as research facilities, equipment or data that eventu‑
ally may help generate the desired benefit (Beaver 2001; Melin 2000; Van Rijnsoever et al.
2008). In this manner research collaboration can be seen as being extrinsically motivated.
During the past few decades, researchers increasingly have become incentivised to focus
their efforts on achievements connected to the notion of academic excellence, which is
measured by various indicators, including journal publications, funding or academic pro‑
motion (Cremonini et al. 2017; Moore et al. 2017). However, at the same time, science and
innovation policies increasingly have prioritised research that is relevant to society (D’Este
et al. 2018; Hessels et al. 2009). Based on these developments, we identify five benefits
that influence a scientist’s choice in engaging in a collaborative research project.
Apart from the expected benefits of a collaborative project, researchers’ choices also
will be influenced by characteristics associated with the project itself (Bozeman et al. 2013;
Perkmann et al. 2013), such as the form of collaboration, type of partner or project topic.
We call these project-specific factors.
Finally, we consider how the expected benefits and project-specific factors are moder‑
ated by different types of motivations for collaboration. Figure 1 depicts the factors that we
test to explain the choice for a collaborative research project. We discuss each factor below.
2.1 Expected benefits
2.1.1 Expected scientific output
First, expectations to publish articles in scientific journals likely influences project choice.
In most science systems, systematic performance evaluations of academic research are
ruled by bibliometric indicators based on peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (Gläser
and Laudel 2007; de Rijcke et al. 2016). This exerts pressure to organise academic work
13
Expected benefits
• Expected scientific output
• Expected research funding
• Career benefits
• Personal financial rewards
• Broader impacts
Choice for a collaborative

research project
Project-specific factors
• Forms of collaboration
• Collaboration partners
• Topic
Personal motivations
Fig. 1 Research model
in terms of publishable units and an orientation toward journals with a solid reputation
(Müller and de Rijcke 2017).1 Thus, researchers may either be interested in the number of
publications or the impact factor of the journals in which they publish (Blind et al. 2018;
Rushforth and de Rijcke 2015).
2.1.2 Expected research funding
Second, specific financial arrangements related to the project are likely important. Research
funding can be used for a material research budget, and/or to hire additional personnel, who
can be used to carry out the researcher’s primary (educational) tasks. In some instances,
this allows the researcher to dedicate more time to research, which can further enhance the
quality and quantity of research output. The acquisition of funding for academic research
has become more competitive and connected to the notion of excellence (Cremonini et al.
2017; OECD 2014). Competitive research grants, particularly excellence grants, can help
the researcher obtain peer recognition (Young 2015).
2.1.3 Career benefits
Third, in many countries, the academic job market and career system have become more
competitive, comprising an increasing volume of temporary positions (Sauermann and
Roach 2016).
Collaborative projects can generate benefits that may advance researchers’ careers
directly in the form of promotions and employment opportunities. Moreover, collaborative
projects also can lead to research that is more interesting or of a higher quality than nor‑
mally would be the case (Gazni and Didegah 2011; Goldfinch et al. 2003). This can occur
when a project gives a researcher access to additional facilities, equipment, data or collabo‑
ration partners (Beaver 2001). Such projects indirectly may enhance an academic career if
the opportunities granted by the project yield research findings. These benefits may attract
1
Over the past 10 years, more advanced approaches to evaluate societal impact have been developed, using
‘productive interactions’ (Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011) or case studies (Smith et al. 2011). These can
potentially give counterweight to the dominance of bibliometric indicators and create more rewards for the
broader impacts researchers generate.
13
researchers who wish to advance their academic careers, as well as those who aspire to
conduct interesting research (Lam 2011).
2.1.4 Personal financial rewards
Personal financial rewards refer here to financial compensation for individual researchers.
Although the traditional view of academic researchers is that they are not motivated by
money, we take this possibility into account because earlier research suggests that some
academics can be motivated by monetary rewards (Lam 2011; Owen-Smith and Powell
2001).
2.1.5 Broader impacts
By broader impacts, we refer to research impacts beyond scientific contributions, such as

contributing to industrial profits, development of new products or services, or coverage
in national media. An increasing share of available funds for academic research requires
promising broader impacts, such as contributing to solving societal problems or improv‑
ing economic growth (Hessels et al. 2009). This makes it more attractive for researchers
to focus on research topics that contribute to these goals, but it also can create struggles to
reconcile practical relevance with academic performance (Hessels et al. 2011).
2.2 Project‑specific factors
2.2.1 Forms of collaboration
The form of collaboration indicates how strongly the collaborative partner is involved in
the research process. A strong involvement of different (industrial or societal) partners can
affect the researcher’s academic freedom (Jasny et al. 2017; Tartari and Breschi 2012).
Building on the typology of academic engagement (D’este and Perkmann 2011; Perkmann
et al. 2013), we distinguish between four forms of collaboration that describe the possible
relationships between researcher and partner. First, there is independent research, which
gives the researcher complete autonomy. Second, contract research implies that two par‑
ties agree on a research question, after which the researcher conducts the research. Joint
research is similar, but both parties conduct this research. Finally, consulting means that
another party has a question that can be addressed without any original research. Most
researchers prefer independent research and will engage in consulting projects only if they
generate attractive benefits (Perkmann and Walsh 2008).
2.2.2 Collaboration partners
Closely related to the form of collaboration is the type of collaboration partner. This refers
to the collaborator’s institutional background (Boschma 2005). Earlier research has shown
that researchers prefer to collaborate with individuals from a similar organisation due to
similarities in organisational norms (Balland 2012). Common collaboration partners are
academic actors, such as other universities or knowledge institutes, and non-academic
actors, such as governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or commercial
enterprises (Edquist 1997; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). Within commercial enter‑
prises, we distinguish between large companies, small- and medium-size firms (SMEs),
13
and start-up firms. Large enterprises and SMEs are known to differ in their contributions to
innovation (Chandy and Tellis 2000), while collaborations between universities and start-
ups have their own specific dynamics (Treibich et al. 2013; van Stijn et al. 2018).
2.2.3 Topic
A third factor is how the research project’s topic relates to the actor’s own field of research.
The research can either relate to the researcher’s own specialised topic within a discipline,
or the discipline as a whole. Moreover, different disciplines can be combined into one pro‑
ject. If the project is approached from multiple disciplines, but they are not integrated, then
we speak of multidisciplinary collaboration (Van den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001). If
the various disciplines are integrated during the project, then collaboration becomes inter‑
disciplinary (ibid). Projects that combine multiple disciplines are more likely to lead to
innovations (Fleming 2001; Páez-Avilés et al. 2018; Yegros-Yegros et al. 2015) and often
are viewed as necessary for solving complex societal problems. However, such collabora‑
tions are not as rewarding in terms of career development (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels
2011). Thus, researchers may be more likely to collaborate on projects that are in close
proximity to their own field or discipline than projects that are further away.
2.3 Personal motivations
As personal motivations and goals vary among researchers, each factor’s importance likely
is contingent on these. Extant literature lists numerous motivations for collaborating, such
as career advancement (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008), solving
scientific problems (Melin 2000; Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch 1998), gaining access to
funding and other resources (D’este and Perkmann 2011; Melin 2000; Meyer-Krahmer and
Schmoch 1998), commercialising a technology (D’este and Perkmann 2011) and reaping
personal monetary gains (Owen-Smith and Powell 2001).2
To classify these personal motivations, we build on a typology from Stephan and Levin
(1992) that has been proven to be helpful using Lam (2011) in an analysis of research‑
ers actively involved in commercial activities. The typology summarises researchers’ three
types of personal motivations: ‘puzzle’; ‘ribbon’; and ‘gold’.
Puzzle refers to the motivations that typically focus on the researcher’s ambition to solve
scientific problems. In Lam’s study, this concerns the ‘excitement’ or ‘fun’ of taking part in
commercial ventures, or a conviction that commercialisation helps realise the wider poten‑
tial of a researcher’s particular science. In the choice of collaborative projects, ‘puzzle’
researchers may show a preference for independent research over other forms of collabora‑
tion. Moreover, they are likely to be influenced the least by the quantity of the expected
benefit or financial rewards. Ribbon refers to the ambition to gain recognition from one’s
peers and fits best with the traditional model of meeting standards of academic excel‑
lence to advance one’s career. Researchers driven by this kind of motivation tend to be
more reluctant to engage in commercialisation. They pursue commercial activities mainly
2
Some of these motivations coincide with the pressures and expected outputs listed above. In our research
design we take this into account, by measuring motivations directly from the respondent, while pressures
and outputs come are determined by an experimental design. We do expect a relationship between the moti‑
vations and pressures and expected output.
13
to obtain much-needed funding for research in an increasingly competitive environment

(Lam 2011). In choosing collaborative projects, ribbon researchers likely will be oriented
strongly toward academic promotion and the academic research system’s performance indi‑
cators, such as scientific publications, citation impact and research funding. Gold refers to
the desire for personal wealth. Lam found a distinctive group of entrepreneurial scientists
who openly acknowledge the relevance of personal rewards. This means that gold research‑
ers are likely to take personal financial rewards more into account in their collaboration
choices than other groups.
Thus, the puzzle, ribbon and gold classifications imply that each group has its own
preferred project characteristics. The ribbon and puzzle groups are primarily extrinsically
motivated, while the puzzle group is also intrinsically motivated.
In the remainder of this paper, we will test whether these groups, with their respective
preferences, actually can be identified, and whether we can identify characteristics that are
associated with group membership. This will help us understand who the members of each
group are and why they make certain choices. To this end, we use Perkmann’s et al. (2013)
analytical framework, which includes a list of characteristics that are associated with uni‑
versity–industry interaction (i.e., academic engagement). These characteristics can be clas‑
sified as being related to the individual-researcher level, the organisation with which the
researcher is affiliated and the institutional environment.
3 Discrete choice experiment
To test how these factors affect he choice of a collaborative research project, we developed
a questionnaire. The first section of the questionnaire consisted of a discrete choice experi‑
ment. Choice experiments originally were designed to measure consumers’ preferences for
marketing purposes. However, there has been an increasing interest in applying these meth‑
ods more broadly within the social sciences (Aguinis and Bradley 2014; Shepherd 2011;
Shepherd and Zacharakis 1999), particularly in innovation studies (Drover et al. 2013;
Lefebvre et al. 2014; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2017; van Weele et al. 2019). Choice experi‑
ments present every respondent with a series of choice tasks in which they choose between
two alternatives. The respondents base their choices on each alternative’s attribute levels.
In this study, these are the factors associated with a project. The choice experiment allows
us to estimate the utility attached to each factor. The levels vary in the different choice
tasks and questionnaire versions in such a manner that in the overall survey, zero correla‑
tion exists between the levels.
We use a choice experiment for two main reasons. First, as the factor levels are pre-
determined by the design and do not correlate, a choice experiment enables us to estimate
each attribute’s relative importance without any confounding factors (Van Rijnsoever et al.
2012). Thus, choice experiments are superior to conventional methods, such as ranking and
rating tasks, for eliciting preferences (Ben-Akiva et al. 1991; Beshears et al. 2008). Second,
by administering multiple-choice tasks to the respondents, we can explore unobserved het‑
erogeneity among researchers.
3.1 Sample and data collection
We collected data among corresponding authors from the two regions of the world that
make the most scientific impact: North America and Western Europe (Leydesdorff et al.
13
2014). We downloaded records of the last 50,000 papers that were written in English,
listed on the Thompson Reuters Web of Science database in 2016, whose authors were
from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden,
the United Kingdom and the United States. The corresponding authors of each of these
papers received an email in February 2017 with an invitation to participate in a 15- to
20-min online questionnaire about research collaboration. Each invitation contained a
unique password to access the system. Prior to logging in, each respondent ticked a
consent box to acknowledge that his or her participation is voluntary, give permission to
link individual responses to available online data from websites such as Web of Science
or Scopus and to verify an understanding that all data are treated confidentially. After
collecting the data, we linked the responses to the author profiles on Scopus using the
RScopus package (Muschelli III 2018). This provided us with information concerning
the respondents’ bibliometric indicators and the organisations at which they worked. We
used Scopus because of its accurate and accessible author profiles with unique author
identifications. This prevents confusion with authors who have the same name, and it
gave us access to their publication history, citations and affiliation data.
The respondents had 4 weeks to complete the questionnaire. A little over 7000 cor‑
responding addresses were not valid or provided long-term out-of-office replies, reduc‑
ing the effective sampling population to 42,964. In total, 3145 corresponding authors
from 1741 institutes filled out most of the questionnaire, leading to a response rate of
7.3%. This is lower than the common response rate among academics (see Perkmann
et al. 2013 for an overview), which is probably due to the differences in the sampling
procedure. Our sampling frame comes from the Web of Science papers instead of from
the lists of researchers from existing programmes, nations or institutes. The lists of
researchers are the most common (ibid). Our method allows us to target a larger and
more diverse sample, but it generates a lower response rate, as the email might be con‑
sidered spam, and the log-in procedure presents an additional barrier. Although the low
response rate does not mean that the sample is not representative of the population (Vis‑
ser et al. 1996), it does imply that one needs to check carefully for any potential bias.
This analysis is presented in “Appendix”. We found no strong evidence for bias in our
sample, but were unable to source Scopus profiles for all the respondents. Thus, the
total number of corresponding authors with full data was 2915.
The average age of respondents was 44.74 years, with 29.9% identifying as female,
and 0.24% not identifying as either gender. Notably, respondents in the sample are rela‑
tively senior: 29.9% identified themselves as full professors because senior academics
can be expected to be more productive, as they are often co-authors with PhD students
or post-doctorates and are more experienced in writing articles. Our sampling strategy
also led to a wider variety of countries than those included in our sampling criteria,
with 31.3% from North America, 51.5% from Western Europe and 17.2% from else‑
where, with the largest numbers coming from China (2.6%) and Brazil (1.7%). There are
several explanations for this. A co-author could have been from the sampled countries,
or the corresponding author could have moved between acceptance and publication of
the study results. The corresponding author also could have had a double affiliation or
conducted fieldwork abroad. As only minor differences in responses existed between the
respondents from the target countries and other countries, we left these corresponding
authors in the sample. The median time to fill out the questionnaire was 15.3 min.
13
3.2 Experimental design
In our choice experiment, respondents were asked to imagine engaging in a new scientific
research project that fitted their expertise. The project would take 2 days per week, on aver‑
age. The respondents received a series of 10 choice tasks containing two alternative hypo‑
thetical research projects with systematically varying levels for each of the factors listed
above (Table 1).
Before the choice tasks were given, the respondents received instructions concerning
how the choice experiment worked, the factors in the choice tasks and the associated levels
(Table 1). After reading the instructions, the respondents proceeded to the choice tasks.
Each choice task posed the following question: ‘Based on the following characteristics,
which of the two projects would you prefer to engage in?’ The respondents could then tick
their preferred options. Each task contained a link to a pop-up screen, on which the factors
and their levels again were explained, if needed (Fig. 2). The experiment contained 2560
choice tasks divided over 256 questionnaire versions, to which the respondents randomly
were assigned.
3.3 Measurement of respondent characteristics
After the choice tasks, the respondents were presented with additional questions to meas‑
ure their characteristics to help describe and explain the groups found in the latent class
analysis. We based these indicators on Perkmann’s (2013) framework, which categorises
the characteristics of individual researchers that have been shown to influence their col‑
laboration choices. We included the researchers’ present and past research collaborations,
past occupations, current employment status, the nature of their research and the nature of
their motivations (Bruneel et al. 2010; D’Este and Patel 2007; Lam 2011; Lin and Boze‑
man 2006; Perkmann et al. 2013; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008). We also measured two char‑
acteristics of the organisation with which the respondent is affiliated: the type of organisa‑
tion and its reputation. Finally, we included two types of institutional factors: discipline
and country.
3.3.1 Individual characteristics
Academic rank Seniority in the sense of a researcher’s academic age has been found to
relate to collaboration positively (Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008), particularly industry col‑
laborations (Boardman and Corley 2008; D’este and Perkmann 2011). Respondents were
asked to choose their academic ranks, which ranged from student to full professor, and
were allowed to choose multiple answers. We constructed an ordinal scale for academic
rank based on the highest level that a respondent indicated.
Gender Research shows that male researchers are most likely to engage with industry
(Azagra-Caro 2007; Giuliani et al. 2010). Thus, we enquired whether the respondent iden‑
tified as male, female or other. As the ‘other’ category was too small to yield meaningful
results (0.24%), we recoded the variable to ‘male’ or ‘not male’.
Career As an indicator of career length, respondents could tick how long they had been
active in academia (including time spent working on a PhD). We also asked at how
13
Table 1 An overview of factors and levels included in the discrete choice experiment, as presented to
respondents
Characteristic Level
Collaboration form The relationship between you 1. Independent research you develop the research
and your partner. Note that not all partners will be question, you do the research
co-authors of publications 2. Contract research you and your partner agree on a
research question, you do the research
3. Consulting your partner has a question, you don’t
have to do new research, instead you give advice
using your own expertise
4. Joint research you and your partner agree on a
research question, and you jointly conduct the
research
Collaboration partner The type of partner that is 1. From your own organization colleagues from your
involved with you in the project own university or institute
2. From another knowledge institute for example
scientists from other universities
3. Start-up firm young small firms still looking for a
viable business model
4. Small- or medium sized firm between 1 and 250
employees and a viable business model
5. Large firm larger than 250 employees
6. Governmental body for example ministries, gov‑
ernmental agencies, municipalities
7. Non-governmental organizations private not-for
profit organizations
8. Consortium a consortium in which most partner
types are represented
Topic Is the topic of the project within your own 1. Within your own specialty the project concerns a
discipline or multi-disciplinary? highly specific topic which matches exactly with
your personal expertise
2. Within your own discipline the project takes place
within your own discipline
3. Multidisciplinary the project spans across multiple
disciplines, but does not integrate these. As such,
your contribution is independent from other con‑
tributions
4. Interdisciplinary the project takes place in multiple
disciplines, and these need to be integrated during
the research process
Scientific output What kind of scientific articles can 1. None
be expected from the project? 2. One acceptable impact article a scientific article
published in a peer-reviewed journal of acceptable
quality that is relevant to you
3. Two acceptable impact articles two scientific
articles published in peer-reviewed journal of
acceptable quality that are relevant to you
4. One high impact article a scientific article pub‑
lished in a peer-reviewed top journal that is relevant
to you
13
Table 1 (continued)
Characteristic Level
Research funding Additional funds that you receive 1. None

for research purposes 2. Double material research budget next year, you
can spent twice as much money on items like data
collection, or conferences
3. Enough to replace you you can hire someone for
the time that you spend on the project to do your
regular job, or something else
4. Enough to replace you twice you can hire someone
for twice the time that you spend on the project to
do your regular job, or something else
Personal financial reward An extra sum of money 1. None
that you receive as a private individual 2. One months’ salary
3. Two months’ salary
4. Three months’ salary
Additional benefits Additional benefits to you or 1. None
someone else 2. Access to specialized facilities, equipment or data
that you don’t have
3. Increasing the profits of a private enterprise
4. The development of new products, technologies or
services
5. A positive societal impact
6. National media coverage in newspapers, radio, TV
or online
7. Academic promotion within your institute
8. Employment opportunities
Note that we presented these factors to respondents as a project’s ‘characteristics’

Imagine that you are given the choice between two possible scientific research projects that are both related
to your expertise. The project will take 2 days per week, and last about a year. It is in collaboration with a
project partner
We will present you 10 choice tasks that each contain two hypothetical research projects. Each hypothetical
project has a number of characteristics that vary systematically
For each choice task, we ask you to answer the following question: “Based on the following characteristics,
which of the two projects would you prefer to engage in?”
Each hypothetical project has a set of characteristics that can vary according the table
Read the table carefully. You can always recall this table while completing the choice tasks
many universities respondents had worked in the past, and whether they are or had been
employed at one of the following external organisation types: large enterprises; SMEs;
governmental organisations; or NGOs.
Output Although the relationship is not entirely clear, indications exist that research col‑
laboration is associated positively with productivity (Lee and Bozeman 2005). To capture
this positive effect, we added, from the Scopus data, the respondents’ list of publications
and citations. We used these data to calculate each respondent’s h-index, which is a com‑
mon measure of citation impact (Alonso et al. 2009; Martínez et al. 2014). If an author has
published ‘X’ number of papers, and each of these papers has been cited ‘X’ number of
times, the h-index equals ‘X’ (Hirsch 2005).
13
Fig. 2 Example choice task
As a measure of technology transfer, the questionnaire asked how many patents a respond‑
ent was listed on as a co-applicant during the past 5 years (Dietz and Bozeman 2005; Mow‑
ery et al. 2001; Perkmann et al. 2013). As a measure of public engagement, it was asked
how often a respondent has appeared in media that reached more than 50,000 people.
Experience with collaboration Researchers who previously worked with industry have
a higher propensity to collaborate with industrial partners (Bruneel et al. 2010; Sjöö and
Hellström 2019; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008). Thus, we asked respondents what types of
partners they worked with in the past and what forms of collaboration they used (D’este
and Perkmann 2011; Perkmann et al. 2013): contract research; consulting; or joint research.
Motivations We enquired into the respondents’ motivations for conducting research by

asking to what extent the respondents agreed with a set of items on a five-point Likert
scale. We asked respondents to complete the following sentence: ‘I do research to…’. The
items were based largely on a list compiled by Lam (2011), on interviews and earlier litera‑
ture on motivations and university–industry interactions. The motivations by Lam (2011)
were based on how researchers were being motivated by the puzzle, the ribbon or the gold.
In this study, we measure these motivations separately, but we use the outcomes of DCE
to seek verification for the three groups. In addition, we added items about motivations for
conducting in general, to prevent priming our respondents too much toward university–
industry interaction. The full list of items is provided in Table 2 in the results section.
3.3.2 Organisational characteristics
Type of organisation We asked at what type of university or research organisation respond‑

ents worked (multiple answers were allowed): (1) general university; (2) university of tech‑
nology; (3) (academic) hospital; (4) university of applied science; (5) public research insti‑
tute; (6) private research institute; or (7) other. Furthermore, we asked whether respondents
13
Table 2 Descriptive statistics, latent classes (groups) and ANOVA or χ2-test
Category Variable Total Group 1 (Puz‑ Group 2 Group 3 ANOVA/χ2-test
zle) (Ribbon) (Gold)
Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD. F/χ2 (df = 2)_ Sig.
Individual characteristics
Gender Male 0.70 0.46 0.68 0.47 0.72 0.45 0.77 0.42 χ2 = 10.97 **
Career How many years have you worked in academia? This 18.51 10.79 19.15 11.13 17.54 10.04 17.97 10.99 F = 7.34 ***
includes work on a PhD.
At how many universities or knowledge institutes have 2.88 1.52 2.90 1.58 2.81 1.40 3.09 1.50 F = 3.61 *
you been employed? This includes where you com‑
pleted your PhD and your current institute.
Previous employment Large enterprise 0.14 0.35 0.13 0.34 0.15 0.35 0.19 0.40 χ2 = 5.78 a
SME 0.20 0.40 0.19 0.39 0.21 0.41 0.22 0.41 χ2 = 1.39
Governmental organisation 0.16 0.36 0.16 0.37 0.14 0.34 0.21 0.41 χ2 = 8.09 *
How academic researchers select collaborative research…
NGO 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.33 χ2 = 0.37
Output H-index of the respondent based on publications in 14.93 15.08 15.65 15.72 14.27 14.43 12.48 12.35 F = 5.96 **
Scopus
Number of publications co-authored by the respondent 66.55 100.74 69.89 100.54 61.11 86.68 64.98 146.38 F = 2.39
Over the past 5 years, on how many patents are you 1.37 0.77 1.38 0.77 1.33 0.74 1.45 0.90 F = 2.39
listed as co-applicant?
Over the past five years, how often have you appeared 2.10 1.20 2.08 1.20 2.10 1.21 2.17 1.23 F = 0.60
in media that reached more than 50,000 people? This
could be through newspaper articles, radio, TV or
popular websites.
Collaboration form Contract research 0.63 0.48 0.62 0.49 0.63 0.48 0.69 0.46 χ2 = 4.63
Consulting 0.64 0.48 0.65 0.48 0.63 0.48 0.63 0.48 χ2 = 0.75
Joint research 0.93 0.25 0.93 0.26 0.94 0.24 0.91 0.29 χ2 = 2.85
Collaboration partner Scientists from your own institute/organisation 0.95 0.23 0.95 0.22 0.94 0.23 0.93 0.26 χ2 = 2.21
Scientists from other knowledge institutes 0.94 0.23 0.95 0.21 0.93 0.25 0.94 0.24 χ2 = 5.89
Newly established firms 0.28 0.45 0.30 0.46 0.25 0.44 0.30 0.46 χ2 = 6.08 *
1929
13
Table 2 (continued)
1930

13
Non-start-up small- or medium-size firms 0.28 0.45 0.29 0.46 0.25 0.44 0.32 0.47 χ2 = 6.63 *
Large firms 0.33 0.47 0.33 0.47 0.33 0.47 0.37 0.48 χ2 = 1.23
Governmental bodies 0.46 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.42 0.49 χ2 = 6.75 *
Non-profit, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 0.33 0.47 0.34 0.47 0.30 0.46 0.34 0.47 χ2 = 6.01 *
Consortium of private, public and scientific partners 0.41 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.38 0.49 0.39 0.49 χ2 = 5.34
Motivation Improve the world 3.92 0.85 3.95 0.85 3.89 0.85 3.89 0.92 F = 1.43
Satisfy my intellectual curiosity 4.48 0.62 4.47 0.63 4.51 0.58 4.44 0.64 F = 1.87
Solve an important scientific problem 4.16 0.73 4.17 0.73 4.15 0.74 4.10 0.72 F = 0.93
Make a career within academia 3.82 0.91 3.75 0.92 3.91 0.87 3.88 0.96 F = 10.56 ***
Make a career outside academia 2.42 1.02 2.43 1.03 2.33 0.99 2.68 1.06 F = 11.26 ***
Gain recognition within academia 3.66 0.91 3.61 0.91 3.71 0.90 3.80 0.93 F = 6.80 **
Become famous 2.40 1.06 2.38 1.04 2.38 1.06 2.61 1.14 F = 5.32 **
Build networks 3.49 1.02 3.51 1.02 3.43 1.01 3.61 1.02 F = 3.54 *
Educate people 4.13 0.81 4.14 0.81 4.09 0.80 4.16 0.81 F = 1.35
Increase my personal wealth 2.66 1.16 2.64 1.14 2.60 1.15 3.05 1.21 F = 15.02 ***
Help me start my own firm 1.90 1.01 1.91 1.00 1.82 0.97 2.17 1.15 F = 11.39 ***
Organisational characteristics
Type General university 0.63 0.48 0.63 0.48 0.64 0.48 0.64 0.48 χ2 = 0.22
University of technology 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.10 0.30 0.14 0.35 χ2 = 3.18
(Academic) Hospital 0.16 0.37 0.16 0.36 0.18 0.38 0.11 0.32 χ2 = 7.25 *
University of applied science 0.08 0.27 0.09 0.28 0.07 0.25 0.09 0.29 χ2 = 4.02
Public research institute 0.27 0.44 0.28 0.45 0.24 0.43 0.25 0.44 χ2 = 6.05 *
Private research institute 0.05 0.22 0.06 0.23 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.23 χ2 = 1.75
F. J. van Rijnsoever, L. K. Hessels
Table 2 (continued)
Other 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.13 χ2 = 0.43
Other employment Large enterprise 0.13 0.33 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.33 0.17 0.37 χ2 = 3.70
SME 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.25 χ2 = 4.42
Governmental organisation 0.31 0.46 0.32 0.47 0.28 0.45 0.32 0.47 χ2 = 4.74
NGO 0.14 0.35 0.15 0.36 0.13 0.34 0.12 0.32 χ2 = 3.08
Reputation WUR category 10.27 2.22 10.29 2.16 10.26 2.27 10.13 2.45 F = 0.54
Institutional characteristics
Country Business expenditures on R&D 1.44 0.62 1.43 0.62 1.47 0.62 1.45 0.64 F = 1.21
Government expenditures on R&D 2.19 0.72 2.17 0.72 2.22 0.72 2.20 0.74 F = 1.32
US 0.25 0.43 0.24 0.43 0.25 0.43 0.30 0.46 χ2 = 4.85 a
Discipline Physical sciences 0.27 0.44 0.27 0.44 0.26 0.44 0.31 0.47 χ2 = 3.11
Engineering 0.19 0.39 0.20 0.40 0.17 0.38 0.24 0.43 χ2 = 7.00 *
Life sciences 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.42 0.49 χ2 = 3.02
Social sciences 0.19 0.40 0.18 0.38 0.21 0.41 0.22 0.42 χ2 = 5.82
Humanities 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.05 0.22 χ2 = 2.96
n = 2915; SD standard deviation, Sig. significance (two-sided test)

a
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
1931
13
also were employed at one of the following external organisation types: large enterprises;
SMEs; governmental organisations; or NGOs.
Reputation To measure organisational reputation, we linked respondents’ affiliations

to the 2016 Times Higher Education World University Rankings (WUR) (Times Higher
Education 2016). We constructed an ordinal variable that indicated whether the institute a
respondent was affiliated with was part of the WUR’s top 20, top 40, top 60, top 80 or top
100. Many competing university rankings exist, and they use different methodologies, but
they tend to have similar outcomes (Aguillo et al. 2010; Saisana et al. 2011; Shehatta and
Mahmood 2016). We chose the WUR ranking because of its prominence. Although univer‑
sity rankings’ validity has been contested (Butler 2007; Hicks et al. 2015), policy makers
and university managers continue to use these rankings as measures of reputation and per‑
ceived quality (Altbach 2006).
3.3.3 Institutional characteristics
Country To capture country differences, we asked in which country the respondent cur‑
rently conducts performs most of their work. For each country, we added funding data
from the most recent Main Science and Technology Indicators from the Organisation of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (OECD 2017). As variables describing
public policies, we included, for the country where the researcher worked, the following
indicators: business enterprise expenditures on R&D; higher-education expenditures on
R&D; and government expenditures on R&D. These variables were expressed as a percent‑
age of the country’s gross domestic product, and the data were retrieved from the 2015 ver‑
sion of the OECD database. If data from 2015 were unavailable for a country, we took the
most recent available data. This was 2014 in two cases (Ireland and Canada) and 2012 in
one case (Switzerland). Furthermore, we added a dummy variable that captured whether or
not the researcher mainly worked in the United States.
Discipline To capture disciplinary differences, we asked the respondents to indicate in

which generic research area of science they were active. Our classification of areas is based
on European Research Council classifications (European Commission 2016), but we sepa‑
rated physical sciences from engineering, as well as social sciences from humanities. This
led to five areas of research.
3.4 Analysis
We analysed the data from the choice experiment using a conditional logit model (McFad‑
den 1974), which models the probability that respondent i selects alternative m at replica‑
tion t, given the values of the factor levels of the alternatives ( zit).3 The model uses the
fl
following form:
3
In choice experiments factor levels are commonly referred to as attribute levels, but for consistency and
readability for a broad audience we use the term factor levels.
13
� �
� � exp 𝜂m�zit
fl
P yit = m�zit = ∑M � �, (1)
m� =1
exp 𝜂m� �zit
in which yit denotes the value of the binary dependent variable, and m denotes(the)number
of alternatives. In our models, 𝜂m|zit is a linear function of the factor levels 𝛽p and an
fl
( con )
alternative specific constant 𝛽m :
p
∑ fl
𝜂m|zit = 𝛽mcon + 𝛽pfl zitmp , (2)
p=1
in which the p index refers to a particular factor. The alternative specific constant controls
for whether the alternative was on the right or left of the choice set. To identify heterogene‑
ity in choices among respondents, and thereby explore whether we could identify the three
groups using Lam (2011), we extended this model to a latent class model. This maximum-
likelihood-based model assigns respondents to latent classes (groups) based on the extent
to which they made similar choices with the same factor levels (Vermunt and Magidson
2002). A categorical latent variable captures each respondent’s class membership (x). The
model includes separate parameters for each latent class. The latent class model used the
following form:
� �
� � exp 𝜂m�x,zit
fl
P yit = m�x, zit = ∑M � �. (3)
m� =1
exp 𝜂m� �x,zit
The linear function 𝜂m|x,zit is

p
∑ fl
con fl
𝜂m|x,zit = 𝛽xm + 𝛽xp zitmp . (4)
p=1
As is customary in latent class analysis (Greene and Hensher 2003; Nylund et al. 2007;
Roeder et al. 1999), we used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) by Schwarz (1978)
as a heuristic tool to determine the number of classes, in which a lower BIC implies a
better solution. The BIC penalises the inclusion of additional parameters, leading to a par‑
simonious solution. We explored solutions of between one and five latent classes and stud‑
ied whether imposing equality constraints on estimators that did not differ much between
classes led to BIC improvement. This means that the final model contains generic estima‑
tors that are the same for all classes and class-specific estimators.
Finally, depending on the respondent characteristic’s measurement level, we estimated an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ2 tests with latent class as the independent variable. For
dependent variables, we used the different categories of respondent characteristics described
above. The purpose of these tests is to make associations that allow us to describe and better
understand the latent classes, rather than make inferences about causality.
13
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive results
During the two years prior to the survey, almost all respondents collaborated with research‑
ers from their own (95%) or other knowledge institutes (94%) (Table 2, ‘Total’ column).
In contrast, only about one-third had worked with commercial firms (28–33%) or NGOs
(33%). An even smaller share worked with both (16–17%). This supports the claim that
university–industry collaboration forms only a relatively small share of collaborations
(Nature Index 2017). The most important motivations for conducting research (on a five-
point Likert scale) are satisfying one’s intellectual curiosity (4.5), solving an important sci‑
entific problem (4.2) and educating people (4.1). Although considered important in extant
literature, academic career-advancement scores somewhat lower (3.8) as motivation for
doing research, as does improving the world (3.9). These statistics support the theory that
researchers primarily are driven by intellectual and scientific motives.
4.2 Drivers of collaboration
The McFadden R 2 of the conditional logit model (Table 3; ‘Conditional logit model’ col‑
umn) is 0.23, which corresponds to a very good fit (Hensher et al. 2005). We report all esti‑
mators as predicted probabilities (PPs), which indicate the probability that an alternative is
chosen if the factor level is present.
The first prominent result is that factors associated with pressures and expected ben‑
efits are more important drivers of project choice than project-specific factors. Academics
predominantly prefer collaborative projects that generate output associated with academic
excellence and career advancement. On average, the prospect of publishing a high-impact
article is the most important factor in choosing a project, with a PP of 80%. Other impor‑
tant factors are publishing two (PP: 77%) or one impact article(s) (PP: 69%); academic pro‑
motion within one’s own institute (PP: 68%); access to specialised equipment or data (PP:
64%); and obtaining various types of research funding (PP: 59–62%). The most important
factors related to societal relevance are making a positive societal impact (PP: 67%) and
developing new products or services (PP: 63%).
Generally, researchers shy away from projects with a commercial orientation. Increas‑
ing a private enterprise’s profit (PP: 41%) strongly decreases the probability of choosing
a project, as does collaborating with commercial partners, such as start-ups (PP: 43%),
SMEs (PP: 44%) or large firms (PP: 42%). Giving researchers a personal financial incen‑
tive in the form of an extra salary exerts only a small positive effect on the choice of a
project (PP: 55–59%). Finally, the project’s topic (i.e., the degree of multidisciplinarity and
interdisciplinarity) exerts no influence on the decision to partake in a project. This implies
that researchers do not object to or favour multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary projects.
The important factors are being able to contribute their own expertise and gain attractive
benefits.
4.3 Puzzle, ribbon and gold
Next, we extended the model to a latent class model (Table 3; columns ‘Latent class
generic estimators’ to ‘Group 3 estimators’). A model with three latent classes (groups)
fitted the data best, with a McFadden R2 of 0.33, which is excellent (Hensher et al. 2005).
13
Table 3 Conditional logit model and latent class model
Factor Level Conditional Latent class Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
logit model generic estimators estimators estimators estimators
PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig.
Collaboration form Independent research 50.0 50.0

Contract research 44.2 *** 43.6 ***
Consulting 43.8 *** 43.2 ***
Joint research 52.7 *** 52.9 ***
Collaboration partner From your own organisation 50.0 50.0
From another knowledge institute 51.8 * 52.0 *
Start-up firm 43.0 *** 42.4 ***
Small- or medium-size firm 44.0 *** 43.3 ***
Large firm 42.0 *** 41.3 ***
Governmental body 50.2 50.5
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 47.6 ** 47.5 **

Consortium 49.3 49.5
Topic Within your own specialty 50.0 50.0
Within your own discipline 48.9 a 48.6 *
Multidisciplinary 49.0 a 48.7 *
Interdisciplinary 50.0 49.8
Scientific output None 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
One acceptable-impact article 69.3 *** 65.3 *** 83.3 *** 65.3 ***
Two acceptable-impact articles 76.4 *** 69.8 *** 91.8 *** 69.8 ***
One high-impact article 80.1 *** 70.9 *** 95.9 *** 70.9 ***
Research funding None 50.0 50.0
Double material research budget 61.6 *** 62.7 ***
Enough to replace you 59.5 *** 60.4 ***
Enough to replace you twice 62.1 *** 63.2 ***
Personal financial reward None 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
1935
13
One month’s salary 54.8 *** 52.2 * 52.2 * 77.6 ***
Table 3 (continued)
1936
Factor Level Conditional Latent class Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

logit model generic estimators estimators estimators estimators
13
PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig. PP. (%) Sig.
Two months’ salary 57.8 *** 51.3 58.9 *** 87.9 ***
Three months’ salary 59.2 *** 51.4 61.6 *** 90.9 ***
Additional benefits None 50.0 50.0
Access to specialised facilities, equipment or data that you don’t have 63.8 *** 65.0 ***
Increasing the profit of a private enterprise 40.5 *** 37.6 *** 43.4 ** 43.4 **
The development of new products, technologies or services 63.3 *** 64.3 ***
A positive societal impact 66.7 *** 68.1 ***
National media coverage in newspapers, radio, TV or online 54.4 *** 50.9 61.9 *** 61.9 ***
Academic promotion within your institute 68.4 *** 66.6 *** 74.8 *** 74.8 ***
Employment opportunities 55.3 *** 53.4 * 59.7 *** 59.7 ***
Number of respondents 3145 3145
Number of observations 30,481 30,481
Number of parameters 30 44
LogLikelihood − 17,524.34 − 17,263.88
BIC 35,290.28 34,882.12
McFadden R2 0.22 0.33
Latent class generic estimators are the same for all latent classes (groups). Note that the estimates for some groups are identical because the model indicated that no significant
differences existed between these groups. To save degrees of freedom, we imposed equality constraints in these cases
PP predicted probabilities, Sig. significance (two-sided test)
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
The three groups from our inductive model closely fit with the puzzle, ribbon and gold dis‑
tinctions. Thus, this result lends strong support to the qualitative categorisation by Stephan
and Levin (1992) and the quantitative follow-up findings by Lam (2011).
It is interesting to note that the groups are based solely on differences in the valuation
of factors related to expected benefits; the project-specific factors (forms of collaboration,
collaboration partners and topic) are valued equally over all groups. All groups are some‑
how extrinsically motivated by different factors, but this effect is least pronounced with the
puzzle group.
Moreover, the groups primarily differ in respondent characteristics at the individual
level (Table 2; columns ‘Group 1 (Puzzle)’ to ‘ANOVA/χ2-test’), especially in relation to
their motivations. This is in line with the three groups’ socio-psychological foundation
(Lam 2011). Organisational and individual characteristics are associated only mildly with
group membership, while institutional characteristics (country and discipline) have no dis‑
cernible relationship with group membership.4 Table 4 provides a qualitative description of
the groups.
4.3.1 Puzzle
The puzzle group comprises 59.7% of our sample, thereby representing the majority. This
group comprises more ‘arrived’ researchers who are less concerned with career advance‑
ment. One high-impact journal publication (PP: 71%) or two acceptable-impact publica‑
tions (PP: 71%) are the most important factors for collaboration choices in this group. How‑
ever, this effect is not significantly stronger than that of the other important benefits (PP:
64–68%). The puzzle group is also more likely to discard projects that increase the profit
of a private enterprise (PP: 37.6%). Compared with the sample mean, this group has fewer
men (68%), and its members have worked longer in academia (on average 19.1 years). The
puzzle group has the highest average h-index (15.6) of all groups, which is explained partly
by members’ longer academic careers. They are most likely to have collaborated with gov‑
ernmental bodies (48%), possibly due to the fact that these more senior researchers’ advice
is more likely to be sought after. When it comes to motivations for doing research, this
group is significantly less motivated to forge a career within academia (mean: 3.8) or gain
recognition in academia (mean: 3.6) than the other two groups. This might be due to the
fact that members’ careers already are relatively advanced. Based on the motivation items
alone, our identification of this group departs a bit from that identified by Lam (2011), as
we do not find a distinctly higher score for items such as ‘satisfying my intellectual curios‑
ity’ or ‘solving an important scientific problem’ compared with other groups. This is pos‑
sibly due to the fact that these motivations in the sample by Lam were measured only for
researchers who had interacted with industry, while for our sample, this was not a criterion.
4
In addition to differences between the five generic research areas, we also tested if there were differences
between the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), Life Sciences, and Social Sci‑
ences and Humanities (SSH) fields. We compiled the STEM indicator by combining the indicators for phys‑
ical sciences and engineering. The SSH indicator was a combination of the social sciences and humani‑
ties indicators. We kept life sciences as it was. The χ2 tests revealed no significant differences between the
groups at the 5%-level.
13
1938
13
Table 4 Description of the puzzle, ribbon and gold groups
Group Puzzle (59.7%) Ribbon (32.6%) Gold (7.7%)
Key factors affecting Balances the different factors Journal publications Personal wealth or recognition
project choice Does not increase a private enterprise’s profit Academic promotion
Characteristics com‑ Longest academic career Shortest academic career Most likely male
pared with other Highest h-index The smallest number of past collabora‑ Lowest h-index
groups Most past collaborations with governments tions with SMEs and start-ups Moved most often between universities or from
Least motivated by making a career inside aca‑ Most motivated to make a career inside government to university
demia, or gaining recognition in academia academia Most motivated to make a career outside academia,
More likely to work at a public research institute Least motivated to make a career outside become famous and gain recognition in academia
academia by building networks, increasing personal wealth
or helping to launch a firm
Less likely to work at (academic hospitals)
More likely to work in an engineering discipline
We only mention the characteristics in which group members stand out compared with other groups
4.3.2 Ribbon
The ribbon group comprises 32.6% of our sample. As expected, this group mainly chooses
projects that comprise traditional criteria for academic excellence, such as journal publica‑
tions (PP: 83–96%) or academic promotion (PP: 75%). Compared with the sample mean,
the ribbon group contains more men (72%) who have worked for a relatively shorter period
in academia (on average 17.5 years)5 and have a lower h-index than the puzzle group
(14.2). They are least likely to have collaborated with SMEs (25%), start-ups (25%) or
NGOs (30%). This is possibly due to the fact that these actors have had less time and fewer
resources with which to collaborate on work that can contribute to traditional criteria for
academic excellence (van Stijn et al. 2018). Of all the groups, the ribbon group is the most
motivated to conduct research to forge a career within academia (mean: 3.9). Its members
are the least motivated to forge a career outside of academia (mean: 2.3).
4.3.3 Gold
The gold group, with 7.7% of researchers, is the smallest. This group seems to focus mainly
on obtaining personal wealth or recognition. As anticipated, its members have a strong
preference for projects that lead to personal financial rewards (PP: 78–91%). Moreover,
they seek academic promotion (PP: 75%), which also leads to increased personal wealth.
Compared with the sample mean, the gold group comprises more men (77%), its members
have worked for a shorter period in academia (18.0 years) and it has the lowest h-index on
average (mean: 12.5). The members of this group have switched the most between jobs,
have moved the most between universities and are the most likely to be employed at a gov‑
ernmental organisation or large enterprise (10%). The motivations for doing research reveal
that the gold group is more driven by forging a career outside of academia (mean: 2.7),
gaining recognition within academia (mean: 3.8), becoming famous (mean: 2.6), building
networks (mean: 3.6), increasing personal wealth (mean: 3.1) and starting their own firms
(mean: 2.2). The combination of being motivated by starting a firm and a lower h-index
is in line with findings by Houweling and Wolff (2019), who made a similar observation.
Of all the groups, the gold group is least likely to work at (academic) hospitals (11%) and
more likely to work in an engineering discipline (24%).
5 Conclusions and implications
5.1 Conclusions
Our analysis provides insights into the factors influencing collaboration choices. The
results confirm earlier studies that have shown that university–industry collaboration is less
common than collaborations with other researchers from universities or academic insti‑
tutes (Nature Index 2017). Our choice experiment provides two indications as to why this
5
We note that the differences in the time to work in academia are relatively small, but we mention them
because they came out of the model as highly significant. However, we recognize that this factor is not the
most discriminating factor between the groups.
13
is the case. First, the strongest factors influencing our respondents’ collaboration choices
were related to the project’s benefits, particularly the expectations of publishing scientific
publications and receiving academic promotion. This suggests that academic researchers
generally perceive university–industry collaboration as contributing less to publishing in
high-impact journals or academic promotion than other types of projects. Independent of
this, we also find that generally, researchers do not prefer to engage in projects that lead to
profits for commercial firms. If given the choice, they would rather work with not-for-profit
rather than for-profit partners.
Having said this, we also found variation in the decisive factors for collaboration
choices. Based on their priorities in the preferred benefits of a project, we found three dis‑
tinct groups across all scientific disciplines that match the puzzle, ribbon and gold clas‑
sifications (Lam 2011; Stephan and Levin 1992). Of these groups, the gold group would
be the easiest to incentivise to engage in university–industry interaction through personal
rewards, while the puzzle group is the most difficult to extrinsically motivate. The ribbon
group is most responsive to pressures from the academic research system. Moreover, the
characteristics associated with group membership primarily are found at the individual
level. Moreover, the characteristics associated with group membership primarily are found
at the individual level. Extrinsic motivations, such as career advancement, help to explain
the differences between the groups. It is noteworthy that intrinsic motivations, such as
satisfying curiosity, do not explain the differences between groups, although the averages
scores in the items show that respondents deem intrinsic motivations as more important for
doing research than extrinsic motivations.
Finally, different organisational and institutional characteristics within the academic
research system are not really associated with the likelihood of belonging to a group. We
discuss the implications of our findings below.
5.2 Scientific implications
A striking finding in this paper is that collaboration choices generally depend strongly on
expected benefits and much less on other aspects, such as how a project is organised. This
suggests that academic researchers regard collaborative projects primarily as an opportu‑
nity to generate output that serves their academic development. Although previous research
has shown how the academic research system is oriented toward recognition and scien‑
tific publications (Bruneel et al. 2010; Latour and Woolgar 1979), to our knowledge, this
is the first paper with quantitative evidence on how this influences collaboration choices
that individual researchers make at the project level. Factors that strengthen a reputation
of scientific excellence turn out to be the main drivers behind collaboration choices. This
perception contradicts evidence that collaboration with industry also can contribute to an
academic career (Dietz and Bozeman 2005; Wright et al. 2014). A question for further
research is whether science policies’ increasing focus on academic research’s social and
economic impacts (De Jong et al. 2015; Hessels et al. 2009) and the associated changes
in incentives will rapidly change researchers’ strong focus on meeting criteria that signify
academic excellence.
The distinctions between the puzzle, ribbon and gold groups show that no straightfor‑
ward answer to this question exists. Each group has its own personal goals that explain
the relative importance of the expected benefits of a collaborative research project. The
puzzle group, which comprises most researchers, mainly is motivated to conduct research
and engage in collaborations for epistemic reasons. Thereby, it is the most intrinsically
13
motivated group. The other two groups respond more strongly to their own specific exter‑
nal incentives, but these groups’ smaller sizes suggest that preferences to engage in univer‑
sity–industry collaborations will change slowly. As intrinsic motivations are important for
job performance, personal well-being (Deci and Ryan 2010; Lawler and Hall 1970), and
creativity (Loewenstein 1994) we recommend future scholars to study which policy meas‑
ures can appeal more to the intrinsic motivations of researchers.
A second major contribution of this study is the use of choice experiments as a method
to study collaboration choices. Choice experiments have a higher internal validity than
traditional survey methods, while still being able to achieve a high external validity (Van
Rijnsoever et al. 2012). Choice experiments also allow for the prediction of hypothetical
outcomes, which is useful for forecasting policy effects. As with any survey, it is necessary
to ensure that the tasks in the choice experiment are sufficiently realistic to ensure predic‑
tive validity. Overall, choice experiments can complement existing methods used to study
university–industry interactions and collaborations. We recommend that future research‑
ers use choice experiments more widely to understand university–industry interactions and
other choices faced by collaborating partners. We further recommend identifying and test‑
ing additional factors that might influence collaboration choices. A possible example is
to look more in depth at the characteristics of the potential partner, such as reputation or
experience.
5.3 Policy implications
Our results suggest that policy efforts to increase interactions between universities and
industry are inhibited by the narrow orientation of most university researchers toward
research and academic performance. This can be explained partly by motivations to satisfy
intellectual curiosity and solve scientific problems. However, our latent class model shows
that there is more to the story. For the ribbon and gold groups, career motivations also
play an important role. The increasing focus on performance excellence and high-impact
journal publications in the academic career system (Cremonini et al. 2017) might decrease
researchers’ willingness to collaborate with industry. Furthermore, our study evidences that
many researchers, especially in the puzzle group, prefer not to engage in collaborations
with commercial partners. This can be explained by the misalignment between increas‑
ing the profit of a commercial enterprise and researchers’ personal motivations. Moreover,
many university researchers have little or no experience collaborating with industry, and
they are concerned about maintaining their academic freedom and integrity in commer‑
cial collaborations (Jasny et al. 2017). It is worth noting that earlier research showed that
universities are among firms’ least-preferred collaboration partners (Van Rijnsoever et al.
2017). This partly explains universities’ lack of collaboration experience with industry.
Our results show that one-size-fits-all policies will not be effective in promoting uni‑
versity–industry collaboration. Instead, we advise policy makers to draw upon the insights
we have gained concerning the three groups. Public funding to support university–industry
collaborations can help realise projects of sufficient size to increase opportunities to get
published in scientific journals. This can help counteract the puzzle group’s hesitation to
collaborate with industry. Moreover, puzzle researchers are likely responsive to different
types of policy than the other groups, because of their strong intrinsic motivation. In order
to influence this group, a transformational leadership style, which appeals to and develops
13
ideals, visions and values, will probably more effective than transactional leadership, based
on incentives and rewards (Bass 1990).
For example, improving codes of conduct to provide guidance for responsible collabo‑
ration with industry may help especially help to build puzzle group researchers’ desire to
collaborate with firms without fear of compromising their scientific integrity. Such a pol‑
icy can help bring align university–industry collaboration with the personal values of this
group about integrity.
An instrument that is more transactional by nature, is rewarding collaborations with
industry or studies’ economic impacts in research evaluations, academic careers and prizes.
Examples include the impact case studies in the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence
Framework and the introduction of the Stevinpremie in the Netherlands by national sci‑
ence funding organisation NWO, comprising a 2.5-million-euro prize for a researcher who
makes a major societal or economic impact. Such interventions can help create more rec‑
ognition for university–industry collaborations, which is important for the ribbon group.
Finally, policy interventions to increase the likelihood that researchers can benefit finan‑
cially from collaborating with firms in the form of financial bonuses, patent ownerships or
shares in a spin-off firm probably will exert a small effect on university–industry collabora‑
tions, as only a small share of researchers belonging to the gold group would be sensitive
to these types of incentives.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Markus Perkmann for his comments on an earlier version of
the paper, and Pablo d’Este, for his help with interpreting the data. This research was sponsored by a Veni
grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (451-12-029) (NWO).
Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com‑
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Appendix: Analysis of bias in the sample
We drew three samples of 5000 corresponding authors out of the sampling population. We
were limited to 5000, as this is the number of author-information packs that can be down‑
loaded per week. We used an independent sample t test to compare the average number of
publications, their h-indices (Hirsch 2005; see below), number of co-authors and number
13
Table 5 Population and sample descriptive statistics
Random sample popula‑ Random sample popula‑ Random sample popula‑ Sample of respondents t-values
tion 1 tion 2 tion 3
Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation t-value 1 t-value 2 t-value 3
Total number of publications 63.32 109.13 62.40 105.37 62.89 107.32 66.55 100.74 − 1.29 − 1.69 − 1.48
Number of authors 457.48 2014.89 401.99 1005.45 437.87 1802.77 414.44 1032.24 1.19 − 0.51 0.70
H-index 14.50 17.76 14.30 16.49 14.65 17.91 14.93 15.08 − 1.11 − 1.68 − 0.72
General sciences publications 1.10 5.58 1.01 4.50 1.11 5.84 0.68 2.20 4.47*** 4.14*** 4.41***
Life sciences publications 34.20 81.79 33.99 97.24 33.80 79.25 34.78 70.96 − 0.32 − 0.40 − 0.55
Social sciences publications 6.10 27.32 6.46 27.94 6.10 27.37 7.49 25.83 − 2.20* − 1.61 − 2.19*
Physical sciences publications 53.90 156.54 53.16 148.16 54.19 156.51 55.20 137.43 − 0.37 − 0.60 − 0.29
Health sciences publications 27.44 74.71 28.03 76.62 27.46 74.53 29.33 83.79 − 0.98 − 0.67 − 0.97
1943
13
of publications in various disciplines in the sample, based on the journals’ Scopus subject
area codes (Scopus 2017) between the three samples from the population and the sample of
respondents. The t-values (Table 5) show that our sample has a small underrepresentation
of authors who have published in the general sciences. However, the absolute differences in
the number of publications are small. Moreover, no significant differences exist in the total
number of publications, number of authors and h-indices. Thus, no strong evidence of bias
exists in our sample.
References
Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientomet-
rics, 85, 243–256.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing exper‑
imental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351–371.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its
variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3,
273–289.
Altbach, P. (2006). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Educcation. https://doi.org/10.6017/
ihe.2006.42.7878.
Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for
the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27, 704–715.
Balland, P.-A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and
development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies,
46, 741–756.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organi-
zational Dynamics, 18, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S.
Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scien-
tometrics, 52, 365–377.
Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., & Shiroishi, F. (1991). Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data.
Journal of Business Research, 23, 253–268.
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2008). How are preferences revealed? Journal of
Public Economics, 92, 1787–1794.
Blind, K., Pohlisch, J., & Zi, A. (2018). Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of
scientists. Research Policy, 47, 1185–1197.
Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research col‑
laborations. Research Policy, 37, 900–913.
Boardman, C., Gray, D. O., & Rivers, D. (2012). Cooperative research centers and Technical innovation:
Government policies, industry strategies, and organizational dynamics. Berlin: Springer.
Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74. https
://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.
Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepre‑
neurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10961-012-9281-8.
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–
industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39, 858–868.
Butler, D. (2007). Academics strike back at spurious rankings. Nature, 447, 515.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Lon‑
don: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cañibano, C., Woolley, R., Iversen, E. J., Hinze, S., Hornbostel, S., & Tesch, J. (2019). A conceptual frame‑
work for studying science research careers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 1964–1992. https
://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9659-3.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innova‑
tion. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–17.
Clark, B. Y. (2011). Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collabora‑
tion. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 514–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9161-z.
13
Cremonini, L., Horlings, E., & Hessels, L. K. (2017). Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing poli‑
cies for scientific excellence across different countries. Science and Public Policy, 45, 232–245.
Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A., & Iammarino, S. (2017). Academic inventors: Collaboration and proximity
with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 730–762.
D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2012). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collabo‑
rations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13, 537–558.
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the
variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
D’este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial univer‑
sity and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.
D’Este, P., Ramos-Vielba, I., Woolley, R., & Amara, N. (2018). How do researchers generate scientific and
societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework. Science and Public Policy, 45,
752–763.
Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university pat‑
enting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
36, 14–37.
De Jong, S. P. L., Smit, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2015). Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A
policy paradox. Science and Public Policy, 43, 102–114.
de Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation prac‑
tices and effects of indicator use—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25, 161–169.
de Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2019). Knowledge trans‑
fer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44,
1236–1255.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Intrinsic motivation. In The corsini encyclopedia of psychology, pp. 1–2.
Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as
scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34, 349–367.
Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Fassin, Y. (2013). Take the money or run? Investors’ ethical reputation and
entrepreneurs’ willingness to partner. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusv
ent.2013.08.004.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations, science, technology
and the international political economy. London: Routledge.
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.
European Commission. (2016). ERC Work Programme 2017. Brussels.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.
Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact:
A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87, 251–265.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are col‑
laborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research
Policy, 39, 748–761.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In The changing gov-
ernance of the sciences (pp. 101–123). Springer.
Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and
‘Periphery Effects’ in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000.
Scientometrics, 57, 321–337.
Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with
mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37, 681–698.
Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hessels, L. K., van Lente, H., Grin, J., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2011). Changing struggles for relevance in
eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education, 25, 347–357.
Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between
science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36, 387–401.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research
metrics. Nature, 520, 429.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.
Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial
patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.
13
Houweling, S., & Wolff, S. (2019). The influence of scientific prestige and peer effects on the intention to
create university spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-
09747-8.
Huang, C.-Y., Yang, C.-W., & Fang, S.-C. (2019). The contrasting interaction effects of university–industry
collaboration motivation with demographic characteristics on university–industry collaboration per‑
formance in Taiwan. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31, 1048–1062.
Index, Nature. (2017). A firm shift. Nature, 552, S6–7.
Jasny, B. R., Wigginton, N., McNutt, M., Bubela, T., Buck, S., Cook-Deegan, R., et al. (2017). Fostering
reproducibility in industry-academia research. Science (80-), 357, 759–761.
Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the
effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89, 967–983.
Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2013). On the drivers of international collaboration: The impact of
informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Science and Public Policy, 41, 520–531.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization:‘Gold’,
‘ribbon’or ‘puzzle’? Res. Policy, 40, 1354–1368.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Princeton
University Press.
Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305.
Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assess‑
ment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111–133.
Lee, S. J. (2019). Academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the effects of academic patenting activity on pub‑
lication and collaboration among heterogeneous researchers in South Korea. The Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 44, 1993–2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9711-3.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Stud-
ies of Science, 35, 673–702.
Lefebvre, V. M., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Sia-Ljungström, C., Minarelli, F., Kühne, B., et al. (2014). SMEs’
preference for innovation networks: A choice experimental approach. Creativity and Innovation Man-
agement, 23, 415–435.
Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United
States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and
collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 606–617.
Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–
industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 31, 269–290.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bul-
letin, 116, 75.
Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a
Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20, 247–254.
Martínez, M. A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-Classics: Characterizing
the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98, 1971–1983.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.),
Frontiers in economics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization—Research collaboration on the individual level.
Research Policy, 29, 31–40.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interac‑
tions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835–851.
Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M. P., O’Donnell, D. P., & Pattinson, D. (2017). “Excellence R Us”: Univer‑
sity research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, 16105.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and
licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research
Policy, 30, 99–119.
Müller, R., & de Rijcke, S. (2017). Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators
in the life sciences. Research Evaluation, 26, 157–168.
Murgia, G. (2018). The impact of collaboration diversity and joint experience on the reiteration
of university co-patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1096
1-018-9664-6.
Muschelli III, J. (2018). Gathering Bibliometric Information from the Scopus API using rscopus. R
Journal. http://works.bepress.com/john_muschelli/7/.
13
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent
class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation
Modeling, 14, 535–569.
OECD. (2014). Promoting research excellence: New approaches to funding. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). Main Science and Technology Indicators [WWW Document]. http://stats.oecd.org/Index
.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB. Accessed 29 June 2017.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at
technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.
Páez-Avilés, C., Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Juanola-Feliu, E., & Samitier, J. (2018). Multi-disciplinarity breeds
diversity: The influence of innovation project characteristics on diversity creation in nanotechnology.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 458–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9553-9.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic
engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations.
Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their
impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37, 1884–1891.
Roeder, K., Lynch, K. G., & Nagin, D. S. (1999). Modeling uncertainty in latent class membership: A
case study in criminology. Journal of American Statistical Association, 94, 766–776. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2669989.
Rushforth, A., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making
of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva, 53, 117–139.
Saisana, M., d’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings
and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.
Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical
review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.
Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2016). Why pursue the postdoc path? Science (80-), 352, 663–664.
Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and
academic science. Organization Science, 24, 889–909.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
Scopus. (2017). Scopus source list [WWW Document]. scopus.com. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/
assets/excel_doc/0015/91122/ext_list_April_2017.xlsx. Accessed 22 May 2017.
Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rank‑
ings: Policy implications. Scientometrics, 109, 1231–1254.
Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Multilevel entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial
decision making. Journal of Management, 37, 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310369940.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for
researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 1, 197–217. https://doi.
org/10.1080/136910699295866.
Sjöö, K., & Hellström, T. (2019). University–industry collaboration: A literature review and synthesis.
Industry and Higher Education, 33, 275–285.
Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). ‘Impact’in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Frame‑
work: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40, 1369–1379.
Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment.
Research Evaluation, 20, 211–218.
Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place,
and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of univer‑
sity–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21, 1117–1147.
Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2014). In good company: The influence of peers on industry
engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy, 43, 1189–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo
l.2014.02.003.
Times Higher Education. (2016). World University Rankings [WWW Document]. World Univ. Rank.
Treibich, T., Konrad, K., & Truffer, B. (2013). A dynamic view on interactions between academic spin-offs
and their parent organizations. Technovation, 33, 450–462.
Tseng, F.-C., Huang, M.-H., & Chen, D.-Z. (2020). Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting
university innovation performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 560–577.
Van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts
and indicators. In ISSI, pp. 705–716.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary
research collaboration. Research Policy, 40, 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001.
13
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the inter‑
actions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respo
l.2008.04.020.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Kempkes, S. N., & Chappin, M. M. H. (2017). Seduced into collaboration: A resource-
based choice experiment to explain make, buy or ally strategies of SMEs. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 120, 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.015.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Meeus, M. T. H., & Donders, A. R. T. (2012). The effects of economic status and
recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: An experimental approach.
Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.005.
van Stijn, N., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & van Veelen, M. (2018). Exploring the motives and practices of univer‑
sity–start-up interaction. Evidence from Route 128. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 674–713.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9625-5.
van Weele, M. A., van Rijnsoever, F. J., Groen, M., & Moors, E. H. M. M. (2019). Gimme shelter? Hetero‑
geneous preferences for tangible and intangible resources when choosing an incubator. The Journal of
Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09724-1.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutch‑
eon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., Marquette, J., & Curtin, M. (1996). Mail surveys for election forecasting? An
evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 181–227.
Wright, B. D., Drivas, K., Lei, Z., & Merril, S. A. (2014). Industry-funded academic inventions boost inno‑
vation. Nature, 507, 297–299.
Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation
impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10, e0135095.
Young, M. (2015). Competitive funding, citation regimes, and the diminishment of breakthrough research.
Higher Education, 69, 421–434.
Ziman, J. (2002). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

How Academic Researchers Select Collaborative Research Projects: A Choice Experiment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Academic Researchers Select Collaborative Research Projects: A Choice Experiment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Academic Researchers Select Collaborative Research Projects: A Choice Experiment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Technology Transfer (2021) 46:1917–1948

How academic researchers select collaborative research

Frank J. van Rijnsoever1,2 · Laurens K. Hessels3,4

Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published online: 21 November 2020

Keywords University–industry interaction · Research collaboration · Choice experiment ·

JEL Classification O31 · O38

* Frank J. van Rijnsoever

2.1.1 Expected scientific output

Choice for a collaborative

Fig. 1 Research model

2.1.2 Expected research funding

2.1.4 Personal financial rewards

By broader impacts, we refer to research impacts beyond scientific contributions, such as

to obtain much-needed funding for research in an increasingly competitive environment

3 Discrete choice experiment

3.1 Sample and data collection

3.3 Measurement of respondent characteristics

Research funding Additional funds that you receive 1. None

Note that we presented these factors to respondents as a project’s ‘characteristics’

Fig. 2 Example choice task

Motivations We enquired into the respondents’ motivations for conducting research by

Type of organisation We asked at what type of university or research organisation respond‑

Category Variable Total Group 1 (Puz‑ Group 2 Group 3 ANOVA/χ2-test

n = 2915; SD standard deviation, Sig. significance (two-sided test)

Reputation To measure organisational reputation, we linked respondents’ affiliations

Discipline To capture disciplinary differences, we asked the respondents to indicate in

The linear function 𝜂m|x,zit is

4.3 Puzzle, ribbon and gold

Collaboration form Independent research 50.0 50.0

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 47.6 ** 47.5 **

Factor Level Conditional Latent class Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

5 Conclusions and implications

Compliance with ethical standards

Appendix: Analysis of bias in the sample

You might also like

2.1.1 Expected scientific output

2.1.2 Expected research funding

2.1.4 Personal financial rewards

3 Discrete choice experiment

3.1 Sample and data collection

3.3 Measurement of respondent characteristics

4.3 Puzzle, ribbon and gold

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 47.6 47.5

5 Conclusions and implications