【導讀】工業(yè)界和大學之間的合作有可能面臨挑戰(zhàn)。雖然大學驅(qū)動主要是創(chuàng)造新知識。塔和戴維，1994）。此外，大學日益促進管理人員的協(xié)作等方面，尋求創(chuàng)造有價。值的知識產(chǎn)權，從而促進技術轉(zhuǎn)移。生更多的形式，，形成編碼規(guī)則。通過政策的建立和支持你、我鏈接的重要性，對障礙的研究。缺乏協(xié)作是有效的政策設計中的一個嚴重障礙。障礙以及處理大學管理，交易有關的障礙。在本文探討的機制中，通過這兩個障。起重要作用的認知障礙的性質(zhì)。在這種情況下，我們希望能表達他們的合作意愿，通過多種渠道將每作為制約更少的接受障礙。我們還調(diào)查是否相互作用–性質(zhì)、集中在寶貴的知識，可以利用競爭優(yōu)勢。機披露對研究結(jié)果的形式的主題。雖然研究人員可能希望獲得優(yōu)先權的信息披。此外，增加大學專利活動開始于貝赫-多爾法案。目前還不清楚是否已經(jīng)發(fā)生的變化在大學大學專利活動的直接后。知識開發(fā)在多個技術領域的步伐也是如此。

　　

【正文】 1999。 Shane and Somaya, 2021). These distributional con?icts are often accentuated by the unrealistic expectations held by universities about the mercial potential of university research (Clarysse et al., 2021), which can result in their overvaluing IP. These types of con?icts with TTOs and university administration may put a sig ni?cant strain on collaborations, eventually deterring ?rms from collaborating with universities. Future research and limitations Understanding the perceived barriers to U–I collaboration is important because it uncovers the problems and challenges that have emerged in the U–I collaboration process. Much of the research on U–I links relies on secondary information on the prob lems and challenges involved in collaboration. There is very little information on those ?rms actually involved in these collabora tions. The present study looks at the mechanisms that may mitigate the barriers to U–I collaboration, and may help to set in place poli cies that will alleviate the problems before they undermine what might be rewarding sets of collaborations. Although we draw information from multiple sources and over time, our study focuses on one period, which makes it dif?cult to draw inferences about the direction of causality. Future research should explore the barriers over time, and examine the factors that lower or raise the barriers to collaboration. It may be that pol icy interventions, such as new university IP policies or changes in university funding regimes, will have a signi?cant impact on the perceived barriers. In addition, although we have suggested that problems of coordination within the university may give rise to the increases of transactionrelated barriers, our study does not explic itly measure the efforts of university to coordinate its activities and therefore we cannot know whether this explanation is the correct one. Like many studies in this area, we have treated the university as a single unit, yet universities are rich, plex anizations, rife with diversity and even con?ict. It is possible that in the future university systems may be more tightly integrated to enable more effective engagement with industry across different channels and therefore lower transactionrelated barriers for industry. Future research should also examine the impact of barriers on the outes of collaboration. Although it is assumed that these barriers hinder effective knowledge exchange, we do not have evidence on how the perceived barriers shape subsequent collab orations. For example, it would be useful to know whether a bad experience of university collaboration deters the ?rm from future collaboration with a university. We also do not know how the use of exante IP agreements may help lower downstream con?icts between universities and industry partners or whether such agree ments themselves create barriers for successful collaborations. This too is a critical area for further research. In this paper, we focused on a sample of ?rms that had been involved in formal research projects, but many ?rms never get this far in their interactions with universities. For most ?rms, U–I interaction involves a long process of learning through small steps, such as enabling student placements through to more extensive know little about ?rms’progression from informal,infrequent interactions to longterm,sustained collaboration with understanding of this progress may offer great potential for effective policy measures to support U–I collaboration.