Structural Determinants of University-Industry R&D Collaboration: A Cross-Country Factor Analysis

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 349 - 380, 28.02.2026

Ahmet Yüzbaşıoğulları

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1732592

https://izlik.org/JA99WP57ZH

Öz

This study deciphers the enduring cross-national divergence in University–Industry Collaboration (UIC) performance by developing and empirically validating a dual-architecture model of national innovation systems. The central finding—termed the “UIC Paradox”—reveals a structural disjunction: the institutional form of collaboration is embedded in Systemic Structural Capacity (F1), while its innovative outcomes derive from Relational Market Dynamism (F2). An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of 112 countries (2007–2019) confirms a robust orthogonal two-factor structure (r=0.00) explaining 100% of common variance. UIC loads predominantly on F1 (0.913), whereas patents and related innovation outputs load exclusively on F2 (0.965), empirically validating the phenomenon of “ceremonial collaboration”—form without function. Complementary Granger causality tests reveal a sequential innovation anatomy: UIC intensity predicts GDP growth at t+1 and unemployment reduction at t+2, reflecting distinct temporal mechanisms. The t+1 effect captures efficiency gains through structural activation (F1), while the t+2 effect reflects deeper market adaptation via relational capability (F2). The study contributes a diagnostic governance framework that operationalizes innovation orchestration through Dual-Metric Dashboards linking measurement, evaluation, and adaptive policy design. It provides a roadmap for transitional economies—such as Turkey—to escape the structural-relational imbalance that sustains low innovation elasticity despite extensive policy infrastructure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

University-Industry Collaboration , R&D , Innovation , Factor Analysis , National Innovation System , Triple Helix , Resource-Based View , Policy Mix , Institutional Theory

Üniversite-Sanayi Ar-Ge İşbirliğinin Yapısal Belirleyicileri: Ülkelerarası Bir Faktör Analizi

https://izlik.org/JA99WP57ZH

Öz

Bu çalışma, ülkeler arası Üniversite–Sanayi İşbirliği (ÜSİ) performansındaki kalıcı farklılıkların altında yatan kurumsal ve ilişkisel mimariyi çözümlemekte; ulusal yenilik sistemlerine ilişkin ikili mimari modeli kuramsal ve ampirik olarak doğrulamaktadır. "ÜSİ Paradoksu" olarak adlandırılan temel bulgu, işbirliğinin kurumsal formunun Sistemik Yapısal Kapasite’ye (F1), yenilik çıktılarının ise İlişkisel Piyasa Dinamizmi’ne (F2) ait olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. 112 ülkeyi kapsayan (2007–2019) veriyle yürütülen Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (EFA), ortak varyansın tamamını açıklayan (100%) ve faktörler arası korelasyonu sıfır olan (r=0.00) iki boyutlu sağlam bir yapıyı doğrulamıştır. ÜSİ’nin F1’e yüksek yüklenmesi (0.913) ile patent başvurularının F2’ye yüklenmesi (0.965), biçimsel uyumun işlevsel etkinliği garanti etmediğini ve “göstermelik işbirliği” (ceremonial collaboration) olgusunu nicel olarak kanıtlamaktadır. Tamamlayıcı Granger nedensellik analizleri, ÜSİ yoğunluğunun GSYH büyümesini bir yıl (t+1) ve işsizlik azalmasını iki yıl (t+2) gecikmeyle yordadığını göstermektedir. Bu ardışık zamanlama, yeniliğin yapısal-anatomik düzenini yansıtmaktadır: kısa vadeli verimlilik kazanımları yapısal kapasite (F1) tarafından, uzun vadeli kurumsal uyum ise ilişkisel dinamizm (F2) tarafından yönlendirilmektedir. Çalışma, bu ikili dinamiğin stratejik yönetimi için tanısal bir çerçeve sunmakta; ölçme-değerlendirme mekanizmaları, “Dual-Metric Dashboard” yaklaşımı ve bağlamsal yönetişim araçları aracılığıyla geçiş ekonomilerinin (özellikle Türkiye’nin) yapısal-ilişkisel dengesizlikleri aşmasına yönelik bütünleşik bir stratejik yol haritası sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği , Ar-Ge , İnovasyon , Faktör Analizi , Ulusal İnovasyon Sistemi , Üçlü Sarmal , Kaynak Tabanlı Görüş , Politika Karması , Kurumsal Teori

Kaynakça

• Abu Sa'a, E., & Gunnarsson, A. (2025). Gaining from university-industry collaboration: Considerations for less experienced firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10244-4
• Ahmed, F., Fattani, M. T., Ali, S. R., & Enam, R. N. (2022). Strengthening the bridge between academic and the industry through the academia-industry collaboration plan design model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 875940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875940
• Amsden, A., & Chu, W. (2003). Beyond late development: Taiwan’s upgrading policies. MIT Press.
• Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
• Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (3-4), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024980525678
• Awasthy, R., Flint, S., Sankarnarayana, R., & Jones, R. L. (2020). A framework to improve university-industry collaboration. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 2(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-09-2019-0016
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
• Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
• Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
• Dang, Q. T., Rammal, H. G., & Nguyen, T. Q. (2024). University-industry knowledge collaborations in emerging countries: the outcomes and effectiveness in Vietnam. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(6), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2024.2355924 Elsevier. (2025, June 30). University-industry collaboration: A closer look for academic leaders. Elsevier.com. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/academic-and-government/university-industry-collaboration
• 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(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
• Evans, N., Miklosik, A., & Du, J. T. (2023). University-industry collaboration as a driver of digital transformation: Types, benefits and enablers. Heliyon, 9 (11), e21017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21017
• Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005
• Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1067–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.010
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
• Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169
• Lee, S., & Jo, J. (2018). Government R&D support for SMEs: Policy effects and improvement measures. KDI Journal of Economic Policy, 40(4), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.23895/kdijep.2018.40.4.47
• Liu, Y., Yi, K., & Huang, G. (2022). University-industry collaboration: The impact of postdoctoral workstations on labor investment efficiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 955935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955935
• Lundvall, B. Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.
• Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109992
• Markham, S. K., Ward, S. J., Aiman-Smith, L., & Kingon, A. I. (2010). The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (3), 402-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x
• Marques, C. S., Ferreira, J. J., Marques, C. P., & Leal, C. (2024). Understanding university-industry collaboration: a social exchange perspective on the entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10084-8
• Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford University Press.
• Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.
• OECD. (2019). University-Industry Collaboration: New Evidence and Policy Options. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en
• Özçelik, E., & Taymaz, E. (2004). Does innovativeness matter for international competitiveness in developing countries? The case of Turkish manufacturing industries. Research Policy, 33(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.011
• Özen, B. S., & Baycan, T. (2022). Regional innovation performances in Turkey. Sustainability, 14(16), 10035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610035
• Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., ... Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
• Pujotomo, D., Syed Hassan, S. A. H., Ma'aram, A., & Sutopo, W. (2023). University–industry collaboration in the technology development and technology commercialization stage: a systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15 (5), 1276–1306. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2022-0344
• Schnurbus, V., & Edvardsson, I. R. (2020). The third mission among Nordic universities: A systematic literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1816577
• Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2
• Sölvell, Ö. (2009). Clusters: Balancing evolutionary and constructive forces. Ivory Tower Publishers.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Taş, R. (2014, June). Technology transfer offices in Turkish universities in comparison with Europe and the U.S.A. Paper presented at the 6th Annual American Business Research Conference, New York, NY, United States.
• Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
• Temel, S., Scholten, V. E., Cengiz, R., Fortuin, F., & Omta, S. W. F. (2013). University–industry collaboration in Turkish SMEs: Investigation of a U-shaped relationship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2013.0109 University of Minnesota, Center for Continuing and Professional Education. (2024, January 15). The benefits of collaboration between university and industry. Retrieved from https://ccaps.umn.edu/story/benefits-collaboration-between-university-and-industry
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.
• Zuniga, P. (2011). The state of patenting at research institutions in developing countries: Policy approaches and practices (WIPO Economic Research Working Paper No. 4). World Intellectual Property Organization. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/economics/wp4.pdf