Combining the production and the valorization of academic research: A qualitative investigation of enacted mechanisms. J. Callaert, B. Van Looy, D. Foray, K. Debackere Discussant: B. Goldfarb

What they did A qualitative study of research scientists at EPFL Find that the researchers do not perceive any conflict between commercialization and production of scientific research Not that they are complements and substitutes, but that they are the SAME THING!

Who determines the agenda? Is necessity the mother of all invention? –(i.e, pull from industry) Are all inventions necessitated by the mothers? –(i.e., push from academics) Are mothers inventions necessities? –(i.e., some mixture) Evidence suggests some of each.

Kudos! There is a great need for this type of work! This looks very promising!

First an offering Let’s avoid discussing the known limitations of qualitative research, and instead explore its benefits

Nevertheless Authors acknowledge that Basic-Industry money result may be an artifact of the Swiss system or EPFL. Convenience sample requires elaboration about generalizability.

Clarifications Who coded responses into the different categories? Better description of the types of valorization activities in question First draft effect: –The empirical support of the team-size premises was weak.

Concerns: The George Bush effect: –Why should we believe what they say, as opposed to what they do?

Finally, a critique for everyone (including myself) Scientific value (i.e., what gets published) is determined by scientists Do scientists now value stuff in Pasteur’s quadrant to the exclusion of promising areas of research – and hence shift into this quadrant? Neither the qualitative nor quantitative methods here can pick this up.