基于生态位理论的产学研联盟中企业动机与绩效研究
|
摘要
当今科学技术的发展日益表现为不同知识领域的结合,创新所需的知识和技能迅速增加,创新过程日趋复杂化,同时创新对企业外部资源的依赖性越来越强。企业、大学和科研机构在技术创新链中处于不同的地位,通过密切合作,各方可以突破自身条件的限制,利用互补优势实现技术创新。从世界各国经济发展的实践来看,产学研合作在国家自主创新能力提升和国家创新体系的构建过程中发挥着重要作用。多年来,我国在推动产学研合作方面进行了多种有益的尝试,也取得了一定成效,但是,产学研实践依然存在着合作动力不足、绩效低下等问题。研究者从合作治理、组织学习、资源获取等不同视角对产学研联盟绩效的影响因素进行了多种阐释。然而,已有研究对产学研联盟绩效存在差异的内在机制仍然缺乏系统性的深入分析。
在这一问题的驱动下,本文基于生态位理论,对产学研联盟中企业动机进行了详细分析;利用演化博弈模型,探讨产学研联盟伙伴的行为特征;集中于产学研联盟中企业动机与绩效关系的探讨,尝试阐明动机对联盟绩效的作用途径,提出动机-行为-绩效的理论框架,并进行实证分析。
本文在文献调研的基础上,综合采用了理论分析、概念建模、博弈分析、统计分析等多种定性与定量研究方法,最终获得了以下五个方面的结论:
(1)基于生态位理论的分析,企业生态位都包括“态”和“势”两方面的属性。“态”是企业的状态,是其过去发展、学习以及与外部环境相互作用所积累的结果;“势”是指企业有效整合和配置内外部资源的能力。根据“态”和“势”的不同,产学研联盟中企业动机可以分为资源导向动机、学习导向动机、成本导向动机以及政策导向动机四类。
(2)基于演化博弈理论,分析了产学研联盟合作伙伴的行为特征。证明如果企业和大学/科研机构采取互惠主义行为时获得的超额收益大于采取机会主义行为时获得的超额收益,企业和大学/科研机构既可能采取互惠主义行为,也可能采取机会主义行为,具体采用何种策略依赖于合作伙伴行为策略的概率。随着合作伙伴生态位“态”、“势”增强,其从产学研联盟中获得超额收益的动力减弱,在联盟中采取机会主义行为的概率增大;存在一个最优的联盟超额收益分配系数,使得合作伙伴选择机会主义行为的概率最小;合作伙伴“态”、“势”越强,其从联盟中获得的超额收益应越高,有利于增强合作伙伴在联盟中采取互惠主义行为的意愿,有效防范机会主义行为。
(3)产学研联盟中企业动机对联盟绩效有正向影响。通过对国内136家企业调查问卷的分析,研究结果表明,产学研联盟中企业动机的资源导向维、学习导向维和成本导向维均有利于联盟绩效的提升。
(4)产学研联盟中企业动机对其合作行为有正向影响。实证检验表明,产学研联盟中企业动机的资源导向维、学习导向维和成本导向维均有利于企业在联盟中采取积极的合作行为。
(5)合作行为在产学研联盟中企业动机与联盟绩效之间发挥着中介作用。在资源导向动机、成本导向动机、政策导向动机与联盟绩效之间,企业合作行为起到了完全中介作用;而在学习导向动机与联盟绩效之间,企业合作行为起到了部分中介作用。
上述研究结论深化了对产学研联盟中企业动机、企业合作行为以及联盟绩效关系的理解,使得本文具有一定的探索意义。较其他研究而言,本文的主要创新之处在于:
(1)本文提出了一个系统考察产学研联盟中企业动机的研究范式。企业加入产学研联盟动机作为联盟构建的起点,对联盟绩效有着重要的影响。但已有研究往往只是从单一视角阐释产学研联盟中企业动机的一个方面,难以解释动机的多维性和复杂性,更无法为产学研联盟实践提供理论指导。本文将生态学中的生态位理论引入产学研联盟研究,深入探究不同生态位“态”、“势”下产学研联盟中企业动机的差异,系统阐释了企业加入产学研联盟的动机,在理论研究的思路上是一个全新的尝试。
(2)在先前组织间合作研究的基础上,本文将产学研联盟合作伙伴的行为表现分为互惠主义行为和机会主义行为,并利用演化博弈描述合作伙伴在产学研联盟中的行为特征,对合作伙伴的行为选择进行详细而深入的探讨,补充了组织间合作的理论研究,为企业通过产学研联盟实现预期目标并防范合作伙伴的机会主义行为提供了参考。
(3)本文将合作行为引入产学研联盟中企业动机与联盟绩效关系之中,构建产学研联盟“动机-行为-绩效”的理论模型,分析企业合作行为在动机与联盟绩效之间的中介作用,从而揭开了产学研联盟构建过程中起始点和终止点之间的黑箱,即联盟中企业动机对联盟绩效产生作用的途径,并对理论模型进行了实证检验,拓展了现有关于产学研联盟绩效影响因素的研究,丰富了该领域的研究思路,并弥补了国内该领域缺乏实证研究的不足。
最后,根据上述结论,本文给出了我国推进产学研联盟建设的若干实践启示,并指出了本研究的局限性以及未来仍需深入研究的问题。
Technology innovation is born with integration and risk. Firms, universities and research institutes play different roles in technology innovation chains, so they need to cooperate to realize technology innovation. From the experience of many countries, we know that industry-university-research institute alliances have played an important role in enhancing the national innovation capacity. China has devoted to facilitating industry-university-research institute alliances for many years, and gained great achievements. However, there are also some problems such as insufficient collaboration dynamics and low performance. Many researchers explained the impacting factors of industry-university-research institute alliances performance from the view of cooperation governance, inter-organizational study and resource acquisition. But the extant researches still lack systematic deep analysis to explain the internal mechanics of different performance.
Based on the ecological niche theory, the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances is analyzed in this article. The behavior characteristics of alliance partners are studied by evolutionary game theory. In addition, the relationship between the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances and performance is examined to explain how motivation influences alliance performance, and the theoretical framework of motivation-behavior-performance is tested by empirical analysis.
With plenty of literature reviews, a combination of research methods such as theoretical analysis, concept interpretation, game theory, questionnaire and statistical analysis are used. As a result, some policy suggestions are provided for practice guidance. The conclusions include:
(1)Based on the ecological niche theory, firms’ecological niche includes state and trend. State is the result of developing, learning and interacting with environment. And trend is the capability of integrating and utilizing resources. According to the different state and trend, the motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes can be divided into four types, that is resource orientation, learning orientation, cost orientation and policy orientation.
(2)Based on evolutionary game theory, the behavior characteristics of alliance partners are analyzed. The results show that, if firms, universities and research institutes gain more excess revenue when they take mutualism behavior than opportunism behavior, the partners can take mutualism behavior or opportunism behavior, which depends on the probability of partners’choice. With the enhancement of niche state and trend, the dynamics to gain excess revenue from industry-university alliance decreased, while the probability to take opportunism behavior increases. There exists an optimal proportion of excess revenue allocation that maximizes the probability of mutualism behavior. The greater of niche state and trend, the more excess revenue should be gained, which can enhance partners to take mutualism behavior in alliances.
(3)The motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes has positive impact on alliance performance. With analysis of 136 samples, the results show that resource orientation motivation, learning orientation and cost orientation can enhance alliance performance.
(4)The motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes have positive impact on firms’behavior. Resource orientation, learning orientation and cost orientation motivation can promote firms to take active cooperative behavior in alliances.
(5)The cooperative behavior of firms has significant mediating effect on the relationship between motivation and performance. The cooperative behavior of firms plays a whole mediating role between resource orientation, cost orientation, policy orientation motivation and alliance performance, and a partial mediating role between learning orientation and alliance performance.
The above research results help to understand deeply about the relationship of motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliance, cooperative behavior and alliance performance. Compared with other researches, this article has major theoretical innovation as follows:
(1)Based on ecological niche theory, analyzing the motivation why firms form alliance with universities and research institutes. Extant researches mainly study the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances from one perspective, lacking attention to the multidimension and complexity of motivation. This article introduces ecological niche theory to research into the difference of motivation based on different niche state and trend, which break through the research paradigm of single view.
(2)Based on extant researches of inter-organizational cooperative behavior, dividing the behavior of alliance partner into mutualism behavior and opportunism behavior, studying the behavior characteristics of alliance partners by evolutionary game theory,. This article makes up the theoretical research of inter-organizational cooperative behavior, and provides reference for firms to meet the expectation and take precaution to against opportunism behavior.
( 3 ) From the process of industry-university-research institute alliance formation, providing a theoretical model based on motivation-behavior-performance perspective, and testing the theory with empirical analysis, which extend the research on the impacting factors of industry-university-research institute alliance performance, enrich the research in this filed, and provide valuable guidance for industry-university-research institute alliance practice in China.
Some limits of this article are discussed and the issues that need to be studied in the future are presented finally.
在这一问题的驱动下,本文基于生态位理论,对产学研联盟中企业动机进行了详细分析;利用演化博弈模型,探讨产学研联盟伙伴的行为特征;集中于产学研联盟中企业动机与绩效关系的探讨,尝试阐明动机对联盟绩效的作用途径,提出动机-行为-绩效的理论框架,并进行实证分析。
本文在文献调研的基础上,综合采用了理论分析、概念建模、博弈分析、统计分析等多种定性与定量研究方法,最终获得了以下五个方面的结论:
(1)基于生态位理论的分析,企业生态位都包括“态”和“势”两方面的属性。“态”是企业的状态,是其过去发展、学习以及与外部环境相互作用所积累的结果;“势”是指企业有效整合和配置内外部资源的能力。根据“态”和“势”的不同,产学研联盟中企业动机可以分为资源导向动机、学习导向动机、成本导向动机以及政策导向动机四类。
(2)基于演化博弈理论,分析了产学研联盟合作伙伴的行为特征。证明如果企业和大学/科研机构采取互惠主义行为时获得的超额收益大于采取机会主义行为时获得的超额收益,企业和大学/科研机构既可能采取互惠主义行为,也可能采取机会主义行为,具体采用何种策略依赖于合作伙伴行为策略的概率。随着合作伙伴生态位“态”、“势”增强,其从产学研联盟中获得超额收益的动力减弱,在联盟中采取机会主义行为的概率增大;存在一个最优的联盟超额收益分配系数,使得合作伙伴选择机会主义行为的概率最小;合作伙伴“态”、“势”越强,其从联盟中获得的超额收益应越高,有利于增强合作伙伴在联盟中采取互惠主义行为的意愿,有效防范机会主义行为。
(3)产学研联盟中企业动机对联盟绩效有正向影响。通过对国内136家企业调查问卷的分析,研究结果表明,产学研联盟中企业动机的资源导向维、学习导向维和成本导向维均有利于联盟绩效的提升。
(4)产学研联盟中企业动机对其合作行为有正向影响。实证检验表明,产学研联盟中企业动机的资源导向维、学习导向维和成本导向维均有利于企业在联盟中采取积极的合作行为。
(5)合作行为在产学研联盟中企业动机与联盟绩效之间发挥着中介作用。在资源导向动机、成本导向动机、政策导向动机与联盟绩效之间,企业合作行为起到了完全中介作用;而在学习导向动机与联盟绩效之间,企业合作行为起到了部分中介作用。
上述研究结论深化了对产学研联盟中企业动机、企业合作行为以及联盟绩效关系的理解,使得本文具有一定的探索意义。较其他研究而言,本文的主要创新之处在于:
(1)本文提出了一个系统考察产学研联盟中企业动机的研究范式。企业加入产学研联盟动机作为联盟构建的起点,对联盟绩效有着重要的影响。但已有研究往往只是从单一视角阐释产学研联盟中企业动机的一个方面,难以解释动机的多维性和复杂性,更无法为产学研联盟实践提供理论指导。本文将生态学中的生态位理论引入产学研联盟研究,深入探究不同生态位“态”、“势”下产学研联盟中企业动机的差异,系统阐释了企业加入产学研联盟的动机,在理论研究的思路上是一个全新的尝试。
(2)在先前组织间合作研究的基础上,本文将产学研联盟合作伙伴的行为表现分为互惠主义行为和机会主义行为,并利用演化博弈描述合作伙伴在产学研联盟中的行为特征,对合作伙伴的行为选择进行详细而深入的探讨,补充了组织间合作的理论研究,为企业通过产学研联盟实现预期目标并防范合作伙伴的机会主义行为提供了参考。
(3)本文将合作行为引入产学研联盟中企业动机与联盟绩效关系之中,构建产学研联盟“动机-行为-绩效”的理论模型,分析企业合作行为在动机与联盟绩效之间的中介作用,从而揭开了产学研联盟构建过程中起始点和终止点之间的黑箱,即联盟中企业动机对联盟绩效产生作用的途径,并对理论模型进行了实证检验,拓展了现有关于产学研联盟绩效影响因素的研究,丰富了该领域的研究思路,并弥补了国内该领域缺乏实证研究的不足。
最后,根据上述结论,本文给出了我国推进产学研联盟建设的若干实践启示,并指出了本研究的局限性以及未来仍需深入研究的问题。
Technology innovation is born with integration and risk. Firms, universities and research institutes play different roles in technology innovation chains, so they need to cooperate to realize technology innovation. From the experience of many countries, we know that industry-university-research institute alliances have played an important role in enhancing the national innovation capacity. China has devoted to facilitating industry-university-research institute alliances for many years, and gained great achievements. However, there are also some problems such as insufficient collaboration dynamics and low performance. Many researchers explained the impacting factors of industry-university-research institute alliances performance from the view of cooperation governance, inter-organizational study and resource acquisition. But the extant researches still lack systematic deep analysis to explain the internal mechanics of different performance.
Based on the ecological niche theory, the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances is analyzed in this article. The behavior characteristics of alliance partners are studied by evolutionary game theory. In addition, the relationship between the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances and performance is examined to explain how motivation influences alliance performance, and the theoretical framework of motivation-behavior-performance is tested by empirical analysis.
With plenty of literature reviews, a combination of research methods such as theoretical analysis, concept interpretation, game theory, questionnaire and statistical analysis are used. As a result, some policy suggestions are provided for practice guidance. The conclusions include:
(1)Based on the ecological niche theory, firms’ecological niche includes state and trend. State is the result of developing, learning and interacting with environment. And trend is the capability of integrating and utilizing resources. According to the different state and trend, the motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes can be divided into four types, that is resource orientation, learning orientation, cost orientation and policy orientation.
(2)Based on evolutionary game theory, the behavior characteristics of alliance partners are analyzed. The results show that, if firms, universities and research institutes gain more excess revenue when they take mutualism behavior than opportunism behavior, the partners can take mutualism behavior or opportunism behavior, which depends on the probability of partners’choice. With the enhancement of niche state and trend, the dynamics to gain excess revenue from industry-university alliance decreased, while the probability to take opportunism behavior increases. There exists an optimal proportion of excess revenue allocation that maximizes the probability of mutualism behavior. The greater of niche state and trend, the more excess revenue should be gained, which can enhance partners to take mutualism behavior in alliances.
(3)The motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes has positive impact on alliance performance. With analysis of 136 samples, the results show that resource orientation motivation, learning orientation and cost orientation can enhance alliance performance.
(4)The motivation why firms form alliances with universities and research institutes have positive impact on firms’behavior. Resource orientation, learning orientation and cost orientation motivation can promote firms to take active cooperative behavior in alliances.
(5)The cooperative behavior of firms has significant mediating effect on the relationship between motivation and performance. The cooperative behavior of firms plays a whole mediating role between resource orientation, cost orientation, policy orientation motivation and alliance performance, and a partial mediating role between learning orientation and alliance performance.
The above research results help to understand deeply about the relationship of motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliance, cooperative behavior and alliance performance. Compared with other researches, this article has major theoretical innovation as follows:
(1)Based on ecological niche theory, analyzing the motivation why firms form alliance with universities and research institutes. Extant researches mainly study the motivation of firms in industry-university-research institute alliances from one perspective, lacking attention to the multidimension and complexity of motivation. This article introduces ecological niche theory to research into the difference of motivation based on different niche state and trend, which break through the research paradigm of single view.
(2)Based on extant researches of inter-organizational cooperative behavior, dividing the behavior of alliance partner into mutualism behavior and opportunism behavior, studying the behavior characteristics of alliance partners by evolutionary game theory,. This article makes up the theoretical research of inter-organizational cooperative behavior, and provides reference for firms to meet the expectation and take precaution to against opportunism behavior.
( 3 ) From the process of industry-university-research institute alliance formation, providing a theoretical model based on motivation-behavior-performance perspective, and testing the theory with empirical analysis, which extend the research on the impacting factors of industry-university-research institute alliance performance, enrich the research in this filed, and provide valuable guidance for industry-university-research institute alliance practice in China.
Some limits of this article are discussed and the issues that need to be studied in the future are presented finally.
引文
[1] Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT [J].Management Science, 2002,48(1): 44-60.
[2] Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study [J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 2000,45(3): 425-455.
[3] Amendola, M., Bruno, S. The behaviour of the innovative firm: Relations to the environment [J]. Research Policy, 1990,19(5): 419-433.
[4] Aoki, M. Types of relational financing and the value of tacit knowledge. In M. Aoki (Ed.), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,2001.
[5] Arino, A. Measures of strategic alliance performance: An analysis of construct validity [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003,33(1): 1-14.
[6] Atallah G. Deffecting from R&D cooperation [J]. Australian Economic Papers, 2006, 45(3):204-226.
[7] Amendola, M., Bruno, S. The behaviour of the innovative firm: Relations to the environment [J]. Research Policy, 1990,19(5): 419-433.
[8] Aoki, M. Types of relational financing and the value of tacit knowledge. In M. Aoki (Ed.), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,2001.
[9] Arino, A. Measures of strategic alliance performance: An analysis of construct validity [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003,33(1): 1-14.
[10] Atallah G. Deffecting from R&D cooperation [J]. Australian Economic Papers, 2006, 45(3):204-226.
[11] Augustine, M. S., Cooper, C. D. Getting the most from strategic partnering:: A tale of two alliances [J].Organizational Dynamics, 2009,38(1): 37-51.
[12] Barnes, T., Pashby, I., Gibbons, A. Effective university–industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects [J]. European Management Journal,2002,20(3): 272-285.
[13] Barney, J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 1991,17(1): 99-121.
[14] Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., Silverman, B. S. Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000, 21(3): 267-294.
[15] Baum, J. A. C., Mezias, S. J. Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992,37(4): 580-605.
[16] Baum, J. A. C., Oliver, C. Toward an Institutional Ecology of Organizational Founding [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996,39(5): 1378-1427.
[17] Baum, J. A. C., Singh, J. V. Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational founding [J]. Organization Science,1994, 5(4): 483-501.
[18] Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., Huemer, L. Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45(4): 691-713.
[19] Benjamin, B. A., Podolny, J. M. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(3): 563-589.
[20] Bercovitz, J. E. L., Feldman, M. P. Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances [J]. Research Policy, 2007,36(7): 930-948.
[21] Bonaccorsi, A., Piccaluga, A. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships [J]. R&D Management, 1994,24(3): 229-247.
[22] Boschma, R. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment [J]. Regional studies, 2005,39(1): 61-74.
[23] Brenna, L. The view from the ivory tower:what do university alliances offter technology firms?[J]. Academy of Management Executive, 2003, 17(1):125-126.
[24] Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997,42(1): 1-34.
[25] Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy, 2010,39(7): 858-868.
[26] Capello, R. Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux: learning versus collective learning processes [J]. Regional studies, 1999,33(4): 353-365.
[27] Carroll, G. R. Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985,90(6): 1262-1283.
[28] Chen, C. J. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance [J]. R &D Management, 2004,34(3): 311-321.
[29] Chesbrough, H. W., Appleyard, M. M. Open innovation and strategy [J]. California Management Review, 2007,.50(1): 57-76.
[30] Child, J., Faulkner, D. Strategies of Cooperation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[31] Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990,35(1): 128-152.
[32] Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D [J]. Management Science, 2002,48(1): 1-23.
[33] Cukor, P. How GTE laboratories evaluates its university collaborations [J]. Research Technology Management, 1992,35(2): 31–37.
[34] Cummings, J. L., Teng, B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2003,20(1-2): 39-68.
[35] Cyert, R. M., Goodman, P. S. Creating effective universityindustry-alliances: An organizational learning perspective [J].Organizational Dynamics, 1997, 13: 44-57.
[36] Das, T. K., Teng, B. S. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances [J]. Journal of Management, 2000,26(1): 31-61.
[37] Davenport, S., Grimes, C., & Davies, J. 1999. Collaboration and organisational learning: a study of a New Zealand collaborative research program. International Journal of TechnoglyManagement, 18(3): 173-187.
[38] David Lei, John W. Slocum, J., Pitts, R. A. Building cooperative advantage: managing strategic alliances to promote organizational learning [J]. Journal of World Business, 1997,32(3): 203-223.
[39] De Bondt R., Henriques I. Strategic investment with asymmetric spillovers [J].Canadian Journal of Economics 1995,28(3):656-674.
[40] Dechenaux, E., Thursby, M., Thursby, J. Shirking, sharing risk and shelving: the role of university contracts [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2009,27(1): 80-91.
[41] Dill, D. D. University/Industry research collaborations: An analysis of interorganizational relationships [J]. R & D Management, 1990,20(2): 123-129.
[42] Dixon, N. M. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2000.
[43] Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning processes? [J]Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 55-83.
[44] Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(2): 99-126.
[45] Dyer, J. H. Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997,18(7): 535-556.
[46] Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(4): 660-679.
[47] Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., Tsang, E. W. Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: current themes and future prospects [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45(4): 677-690.
[48] Eom, B. Y., Lee, K. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization [J]. Research Policy, 2009,39: 625-639.
[49] Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The Endless Transition: A "Triple Helix" of University-Industry-Government Relations [J]. Minerva, 1998,36(3): 203-208.
[50] Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and“Mode 2”to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations [J].Research Policy, 2000,29(2): 109-123.
[51] Fassin, Y. The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices [J]. Journal of Research Administration, 2000,1(2): 31-41.
[52] Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., Roessner, J. D. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers [J]. Research Policy, 2002,31(3): 457-474.
[53] Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling [J]. Research Policy,2006, 35(2): 309-323.
[54] Freeman, J., Hannan, M. T. Niche width and the dynamics of organizational populations [J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,88(6): 1116-1145.
[55] Fritsch, M., Schwirten, C. Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public researchinstitutions in regional innovation systems [J]. Industry & Innovation, 1999,6(1): 69-83.
[56] Gehring, T. Intermediation in search market [J]s. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 1993,2(01): 97-120.
[57] Geisler, E. Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships [J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,1995, 7(2): 217-229.
[58] Gertler, M. S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there) [J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2003,3(1): 75-99.
[59] Glaister, K. W., Buckley, P. J. Strategic motives for international alliance formation [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 1996,33(3): 301-332.
[60] Gomes, J. F. S., Hurmelinna, P., Amaral, V., et al. Managing relationships of the republic of science and the kingdom of industry [J]. Journal of Workplace Learnning, 2005,17(1/2): 88-98.
[61] Gray, B. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration [J]. Human Relations, 1985,38(10): 911-936.
[62] Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995,38(1): 85-112.
[63] Gulati, R. Alliances and networks [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(4): 293-317.
[64] Gulati, R. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5): 397-420.
[65] Hagedoorn J., Narula R. Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: international and sectoral differences [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(2):265-284.
[66] Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., Scott, J. T. Universities as research partners [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,2003, 85(2): 485-491.
[67] Ham, R. M., Mowery, D. C. Improving the effectiveness of public–private R&D collaboration: case studies at a US weapons laboratory [J]. Research Policy, 1998,26(6): 661-675.
[68] Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12: 83-103.
[69] Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., Prahalad, C. K. Collaborate with your competitors and win [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1989,67(1): 133-139.
[70] Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R. The organizational niche [J]. Sociological Theory,2003,21(4): 309-340.
[71] Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. The population ecology of organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1977, 83(5): 929-984.
[72] HellstrOm, T., Jacob, M. Evaluating and managing the performance of university-industry partnerships: From central rule to dynamic research networks [J]. Evaluation, 1999,5(3): 330-339.
[73] Henderson, R. M., Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990,35(1): 9-30.
[74] Hobday, M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? [J]Research Policy, 2000,29(7-8): 871-893.
[75] Hoppe, H. C., Ozdenoren, E. Intermediation in innovation [J]. International Journal ofIndustrial Organization,2005,23(5-6):483-503.
[76] Howells, J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography [J]. Urban Studies, 2002,39(5): 871-884.
[77] Hyder, A. S., Eriksson, L. T. Success is not enough: The spectacular rise and fall of a strategic alliance between two multinationals [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2005,34(8): 783-796.
[78] Jarrilo, J. C. On strategic networks [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1988,9(1): 31-41.
[79] Jeroen P.J. de Jong, Freel, M. Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms [J]. Research Policy, 2010,39(1): 47-54.
[80] Kadama, M. Creating new business through a strategic innovation community-case study of a new interactive video service in Japen [J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2002,20(4): 289-302.
[81] Kalaignanam, K., Shankar, V., Varadarajan, R. Asymmetric new product development alliances: Win-win or win-lose partnerships? [J]Management Science,2007, 53(3): 357-374.
[82] Kapmeier, F. Dynamics of common learning in learning alliances [EB/OL]. http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2003/proceed/PAPERS/342.pdf. 2009-07-12.
[83] Katz, J. S. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration [J]. Scientometrics, 1994,31(1): 31-43.
[84] Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J. L., Joncas, H. Managing alliance relationships: key challenges in the early stages of collaboration [J]. R&D Management, 2002,32(1): 11-22.
[85] Kodama, T. The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages-An empirical study of TAMA in Japan [J]. Research Policy,2008, 37(8): 1224-1240.
[86] Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions [J]. Journal of Management, 1995,21(4): 657-669.
[87] L??f, H., Brostr?m, A. Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? [J] The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2008,33(1): 73-90.
[88] Lancastre, A., Lages, L. F. The relationship between buyer and a B2B e-marketplace: Cooperation determinants in an electronic market context [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2006,35(6): 774-789.
[89] Landry, R., Traore, N., Godin, B. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity [J]. Higher Education, 1996,32(3): 283-301.
[90] Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(5): 461-477.
[91] Larsen, M. T. Too close for comfort? The effect of university-industry collaboration on the scientific performance of university professors [C]. the DRUID summer conference. Denmark,2007.
[92] Laursen, K., Salter, A. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? [J]Research Policy, 2004,33(8): 1201-1215.
[93] Lee, Y. S. Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy,1996, 25(6): 843-863. 137
[94] Lhuillery, S., Pfister, E. R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data [J]. Research Policy, 2009,38(1): 45-57.
[95] Liyanage, S. Breeding innovation clusters through collaborative research networks [J]. Technovation, 1995,15(9): 553-567.
[96] Lopez-Martinez, R. E., Medellin, E., Scanlon, A. P., et al. Motivations and obstacles to university industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican case [J]. R&D Management, 1994,24(1): 17-30.
[97] Lunnan, R., Haugland, S. A. Predicting and measuring alliance performance: A multidimensional analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(5): 545-556.
[98] Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Sivertsen, G. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values, 1992,17(1): 101-126.
[99] Madhok, A., Tallman, S. B. Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships [J]. Organization Science, 1998,9(3): 326-339.
[100] Mailath, G. J., Samuelson, L. Who wants a good reputation? [J]Review of Economic Studies, 2001,68(2): 415-441.
[101] Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings [J]. Research Policy, 1998,26(7): 773-776.
[102] Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995,20(3): 709-734.
[103] McKelvey, B., Aldrich, H. Populations, natural selection, and applied organizational science [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983,28(1): 101-128.
[104] McPherson, M. An ecology of affiliation [J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,48(4): 519-532.
[105] Meeus, M. T. H., Oerlemans, L. A. G. Firm behaviour and innovative performance:An empirical exploration of the selection-adaptation debate [J]. Research Policy, 2000,29(1): 41-58.
[106] Meyer, J. W., Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1977,82 (2): 340-363.
[107] Monck C.P., Porter R. B., Quintas P., et al. Science parks and the growth of high technology firms [M]. London: CroomHelm, 1988.
[108] Mohr, J., Spekman, R. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15(2): 135-152.
[109] Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003,21(9): 1255-1270.
[110] Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., Guerras-Martin, L. A. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(1): 17-40.
[111] Motohashi, K. University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System [J]. Research Policy,2005, 34(5): 583-594.
[112] Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., Silverman, B. S. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 77-91.
[113] Mowery, D. C., Shane, S. Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer [J]. Management Science,2002, 48(1): v–ix.
[114] Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K. Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda [J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,1995,15: 80-116.
[115] Nelson, R. R. The market economy, and the scientific commons [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(3): 455-471.
[116] Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[117] Oxley, J. E. Alliances and Performance [J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 2009,26: 147-164.
[118] Pérez‐Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., et al. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Cross‐Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2008, 45(4): 714-744.
[119] Pennings, J. M., Harianto, F. The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992,13(1): 29-46.
[120] Perkmann, M., Neely, A., Walsh, K. How Should Firms Evaluate Success in University-Industry Alliances? A Performance Measurement System [J]. R &D Management, 2011,41(2):202-216.
[121] Peter Lindel?f , L?fsten, H. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2004,29(3): 311-326.
[122] Poppo, L., Zenger, T. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?[ J] Strategic Management Journal, 2002,23(8): 707-725.
[123] Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L.. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996,41(1): 116-145.
[124] Rajiv Sethi, Somanathan E. Understanding reciprocity [J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003,50(1):1-27.
[125] Ring P., Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships [J].Academy of Management Review,1994,19(1):90-118.
[126] Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R. R. American universities and technical advance in industry [J]. Research Policy, 1994,23(3): 323-348.
[127] Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s [J]. R&D Management,1992, 22(3): 221-240.
[128] Rothwell, R., Dodgson, M. External linkages and Innovationsin small and medium-sized enterprises [J]. R & D Management, 1991,21(2): 125-137.
[129] Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., et al. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(3): 393-404.
[130] Santoro, M. D. Success breeds success:: The linkage between relationship intensity andtangible outcomes in industry-university collaborative ventures [J]. The Journal of High Technology Management, 2000,11(2): 255-273.
[131] Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A. K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002, 31(7): 1163-1180.
[132] Saxton, T. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes [J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 1997,40(2): 443-461.
[133] Sherwood, A. L., Covin, J. G.. Knowledge Acquisition in University–Industry Alliances: An Empirical Investigation from a Learning Theory Perspective [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008,25(2): 162-179.
[134] Shohet, S., Prevezer, M. UK biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries [J]. R & D Management,1996, 26(3): 283-298.
[135] Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999,20(7): 595-623.
[136] Slevin, D. P., Pinto, J. K. Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation [J]. Sloan Management Review,1987, 29(1): 33-41.
[137] Spencer, J. W. Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(3): 217-233.
[138] Steven S. Lui, Hang-Yue Ngo.The Role of Trust and Contractual Safeguards on Cooperation in Non-equity Alliances [J]. Journal of Management, 2004,30(4):471-485.
[139] Stuart, T. E., Podolny, J. M. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(1): 21-38.
[140] Sung, T. K. Firm size, networks and innovative activity: evidence from the Korean manufacturing firms [J]. Technological Innovation Studies,2005, 13(3): 1-20.
[141] Szulanski, G. Unpacking stickiness: an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practice inside the firm [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995,Best Paper Proceedings: 437-441.
[142] Teece, D. J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation : Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1992,18(1): 1-25.
[143] Tether, B. S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why:An empirical analysis [J]. Research Policy, 2002,31(6): 947-967.
[144] Tsai, K. H., Wang, J. C. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey [J]. Research Policy, 2009,38(3): 518-526.
[145] Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(5): 996-1004.
[146] Tsang, E. W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: learning‐by‐doing and learning myopia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002,23(9): 835-854.
[147] Vedovello, C. Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximitybetween the agents as a driving force [J]. Technovation, 1997,17(9): 491-502.
[148] Wen B. L. Factors affecting the correlation between interactive mechanism of strategic alliance and technological knowledge transfer performance [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2007,17(2):139-155.
[149] Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2): 171-180.
[150] Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives [J]. Administrative Science Quartely, 1991,36(2): 269-296.
[151] Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., Singh, H. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances [J]. Organization Science, 2002,13(6): 701-713.
[152]包庆德,贾承伯.生态位:概念内涵的完善与外延辐射的拓展[J].自然辩证法研究. 2010,26(11): 43-48.
[153]柴文静,李平.创新生态系统[J]. 21世纪商业评论,2007,2: 47-48.
[154]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立主编.组织与管理研究的实证方法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[155]董静,苟燕楠,吴晓薇.我国产学研合作创新中的知识产权障碍——基于企业视角的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2008,7: 20-25.
[156]段瑞春.产学研合作创新:机遇与挑战(下)[J].中国科技产业: 14-17.
[157]范德成,唐小旭.我国各省市产学研结合技术创新的绩效评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2009,30(1): 66-70.
[158]郭斌,谢志宇,吴惠芳.产学研合作绩效的影响因素及其实证分析[J].科学学研究, 2003,21(S1): 140-147.
[159]郭斌,等.知识经济下产学研合作的模式、机制与绩效评价[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[160]郭妍,徐向艺.企业生态位研究综述:概念、测度及战略运用[J].产业经济评论,2009, 8(2): 105-119.
[161]郭妍,徐向艺. 2009.企业生态位研究综述:概念、测度及战略运用.产业经济评论, 8(2): 105-119.
[162]亨利.埃茨科威兹.创业型大学与创新的三螺旋模型[J].科学学研究, 2009,27(4): 481-488.
[163]胡恩华,郭秀丽.我国产学研合作创新中存在的问题及对策研究[J].科学管理研究, 2002,20(1): 69-72.
[164]胡振华,张宁辉.基于生态位构建的企业动态核心竞争力分析[J].当代财经2010,2: 68-73.
[165]黄鲁成.基于生态学的技术创新行为研究.北京:科学出版社,2007.
[166]稽登科.企业网络对企业技术创新绩效的影响研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学, 2006.
[167]纪秋颖,林健.高校生态位及其评价方法研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2006,8: 93-96.
[168]蒋军锋,张玉韬,王修来.知识演变视角下技术创新网络研究进展与未来方向[J].科研管理, 2010,31(3): 68-77,133.
[169]焦俊,李垣.基于联盟网络的企业知识获得和技术创新[J].研究与发展管理,2008, 20(1): 104-109.
[170]金芙蓉,罗守贵.产学研合作绩效评价指标体系研究[J].科学管理研究, 2009,27(3): 43-46,68.
[171] G.多西编.钟学义译.技术进步与经济理论[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1992.
[172]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[173]李嘉明,甘慧.基于协同学理论的产学研联盟演化机制研究[J].科研管理,2009, 30(3):166-172,212.
[174]李伟,聂鸣,李顺才.影响技术联盟绩效的企业组织行为特征研究[J].中国软科学2009,7: 124-133,150.
[175]李新男.创新“产学研结合”组织模式构建产业技术创新战略联盟[J].中国软科学2007,5: 9-12,42.
[176]林盛杰,张家皋.谈“产学研合作”质量评估体系的建立[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版), 2000,22(5): 28-31.
[177]刘鹤玲.亲缘、互惠与驯顺:利他理论的三次突破[J].自然辩证法研究,2000,16(3):7-11,29.
[178]刘雯雯,杨震宁,王以华.科技园管理创新、战略动机和企业创新绩效:一个整合模型[J].科学学研究, 2009,27(5): 783-792.
[179]刘璇华.产学研合作中组织间学习效果的影响因素及对策分析[J].研究与发展管理, 2007,19(4): 112-118.
[180]刘学,项晓峰,江岚,等.提高研发联盟的绩效:加强控制还是增进关系—基于中国制药产业的实证分析[J].管理学家(学术版),2008, 1(4): 316-326.
[181]刘益,李垣,杜旖丁.战略联盟模式选择的分析框架:资源、风险与结构模式间关系的概念模型[J].管理工程学报,2004, 18(3): 33-37.
[182]柳卸林,王军,潘铁.政府应如何化解产学研合作中的矛盾—日本VLSI和北京长风联盟的启示[J].科技潮, 2007,9:68-69.
[183]鲁若愚.企业大学合作创新的机理研究[D].博士学位论文,清华大学,2002.
[184]马德秀.瞄准需求突破障碍大力推进产学研用结合[J].中国高等教育, 2010,12:18-20.
[185]马庆国.管理统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2002.
[186]马世骏.现代生态学透视[M].北京:科学出版社,1990.
[187]迈克尔.波特著.陈小悦译.竞争优势[M].北京:华夏出版社,1997.
[188]孟祥娟,石宾.论产学研联盟相关的知识产权问题[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2007,2: 104-109.
[189]潘镇,李晏墅.联盟中的信任—一项中国情景下的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2008,4: 44-54.
[190]钱辉.生态位、因子互动与企业演化[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[191]尚玉昌.生态学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[192]生延超.创新投入补贴还是创新产品补贴:技术联盟的政府策略选择[J].中国管理科学,2008,16(6):184-192.
[193]石高宏,李灵燕.强烈的互惠主义:一种关于企业内合作行为的新解释[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2004,6(1):54-59.
[194]史占中.企业战略联盟[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2001.
[195]孙彩虹,于辉,齐建国.企业合作R&D中资源投入的机会主义行为[J].系统工程理论与实践. 2010,30(3): 447-455.
[196]苏中锋,谢恩,李垣.基于不同动机的联盟控制方式选择及其对联盟绩效的影响—中国企业联盟的实证分析[J].南开管理评论, 2007,10(5):4-11.
[197]孙儒泳,李博,诸葛阳,等.普通生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993.
[198]王刚.关于生态位定义的探讨及生态位重叠计测公式改进的研究[J].生态学报, 1984,4(2): 119-127.
[199]王文岩,孙福全,申强.产学研合作模式的分类、特征及选择[J].中国科技论坛2008,5:37-40.
[200]王孝斌,李福刚.地理邻近在区域创新中的作用机理及其启示[J].经济地理, 2007,27(4): 543-546,552.
[201]王秀丽,王利剑.产学研合作创新效率的DEA评价[J].统计与决策2009,3: 54-56.
[202]王雪原.我国产学研联盟模式与机制研究[D].硕士学位论文,哈尔滨理工大学, 2006.
[203]王颖.金融危机背景下中部地区产学研合作现状及对策分析[J].科技进步与对策, 2009,26(24): 17-19.
[204]威廉姆森(Williamson, O. E.).资本主义经济制度[M].段毅才,等译.北京:商务印书馆, 2004.
[205]温珂,周华东.联盟能力视角下的产学研合作联盟促进政策研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2010,8: 10-14.
[206]吴明隆. SPSS统计应用实务—问卷分析与应用统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[207]武玉英,田萌.基于生态位理论的企业战略联盟形成研究[J].统计与决策2008,6: 174-176.
[208]西格法德.哈里森.日本的技术与创新管理—从寻求技术诀窍到寻求合作者[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[209]习明.中小企业集群的形成机制和发展问题研究[D].博士学位论文.厦门大学,2008.
[210]谢识予.经济博弈论(第三版) [M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[211]邢以群,吴征.从企业生态位看技术变迁对企业发展的影响[J].科学学研究2005,4: 495-499.
[212]徐飞.战略管理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
[213]徐志坚.以产学研合作为突破,加快建设国家创新体系[EB/OL]. http://www.360cxy.cn/Front/InfoTemp.aspx?InfoID=667160,2010-09-03.
[214]许芳,李建华.企业生态位原理及模型研究[J].中国软科学2005,5:130-139.
[215]谢科范,刘海林.产学研合作共建研发实体的博弈分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2006,10:27-30,109.
[216]谢识予.经济博弈论(第三版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[217]薛卫,曹建国,易难,雷家骗.企业与大学技术合作的绩效:基于合作治理视角的实证研究[J].中国软科学2010,3: 120-132,185.
[218]薛卫,易难,曹建国,雷家骕.产学研合作中组织学习中介效应的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2010,4: 28-35.
[219]严建援,颜承捷,秦凡.企业战略联盟的动机、形态及其绩效的研究综述[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版)2003,6: 83-91.
[220]杨光.高层人员的商业友谊与战略联盟的稳定性研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2009,27(2): 77-80.
[221]易余胤,肖条军,盛昭瀚.合作研发中机会主义行为的演化博弈分析[J].管理科学学报, 2005,8(4):80-87.
[222]余光胜.企业竞争优势根源的理论演进[J].外国经济与管理, 2002,24(10): 2-7.
[223]余津津.现代西方声誉理论述评[J].当代财经2003,11: 18-22.
[224]袁胜军,黄立平,刘仲英.产学研合作中存在的问题及对策分析[J].科学管理研究, 2006,24(6): 49-52.
[225]张光明,谢寿昌.生态位概念演变与展望[J].生态学杂志,1997,16(6): 46-51.
[226]张洪潮,何任.非对称企业合作创新的进化博弈模型分析[J].中国管理科学,2010,18(6):163-170.
[227]张丽萍.从生态位到技术生态位[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002,3:23-25.
[228]张米尔,武春友.产学研合作创新的交易费用[J].科学学研究,2001, 19(1): 89-92.
[229]张万宽.高新技术领域的产学研技术联盟绩效研究—基于资源依附和交易成本的分析视角.科技进步与对策, 2008,25(6): 12-16.
[230]郑师章,吴千红,王海波,等.普通生态学—原理、方法和应用[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1994.
[231]周竺,黄瑞华.产学研合作中的知识产权冲突及协调[J].研究与发展管理, 2004,16(1): 90-94.
[232]朱春全.生态位态势理论与扩充假说[J].生态学报,1997, 17(3): 324-332.
[233]朱学彦.基于嵌入性关系和组织间学习的产学研知识联盟研究[J].博士学位论文,浙江大学, 2009.
[234]祝东伟.国外产学研合作典型模式的研究与启示[J].中国科技产业2006,12: 78-81.
[2] Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study [J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 2000,45(3): 425-455.
[3] Amendola, M., Bruno, S. The behaviour of the innovative firm: Relations to the environment [J]. Research Policy, 1990,19(5): 419-433.
[4] Aoki, M. Types of relational financing and the value of tacit knowledge. In M. Aoki (Ed.), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,2001.
[5] Arino, A. Measures of strategic alliance performance: An analysis of construct validity [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003,33(1): 1-14.
[6] Atallah G. Deffecting from R&D cooperation [J]. Australian Economic Papers, 2006, 45(3):204-226.
[7] Amendola, M., Bruno, S. The behaviour of the innovative firm: Relations to the environment [J]. Research Policy, 1990,19(5): 419-433.
[8] Aoki, M. Types of relational financing and the value of tacit knowledge. In M. Aoki (Ed.), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,2001.
[9] Arino, A. Measures of strategic alliance performance: An analysis of construct validity [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003,33(1): 1-14.
[10] Atallah G. Deffecting from R&D cooperation [J]. Australian Economic Papers, 2006, 45(3):204-226.
[11] Augustine, M. S., Cooper, C. D. Getting the most from strategic partnering:: A tale of two alliances [J].Organizational Dynamics, 2009,38(1): 37-51.
[12] Barnes, T., Pashby, I., Gibbons, A. Effective university–industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects [J]. European Management Journal,2002,20(3): 272-285.
[13] Barney, J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 1991,17(1): 99-121.
[14] Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., Silverman, B. S. Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000, 21(3): 267-294.
[15] Baum, J. A. C., Mezias, S. J. Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992,37(4): 580-605.
[16] Baum, J. A. C., Oliver, C. Toward an Institutional Ecology of Organizational Founding [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996,39(5): 1378-1427.
[17] Baum, J. A. C., Singh, J. V. Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational founding [J]. Organization Science,1994, 5(4): 483-501.
[18] Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., Huemer, L. Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45(4): 691-713.
[19] Benjamin, B. A., Podolny, J. M. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(3): 563-589.
[20] Bercovitz, J. E. L., Feldman, M. P. Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances [J]. Research Policy, 2007,36(7): 930-948.
[21] Bonaccorsi, A., Piccaluga, A. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships [J]. R&D Management, 1994,24(3): 229-247.
[22] Boschma, R. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment [J]. Regional studies, 2005,39(1): 61-74.
[23] Brenna, L. The view from the ivory tower:what do university alliances offter technology firms?[J]. Academy of Management Executive, 2003, 17(1):125-126.
[24] Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997,42(1): 1-34.
[25] Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy, 2010,39(7): 858-868.
[26] Capello, R. Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux: learning versus collective learning processes [J]. Regional studies, 1999,33(4): 353-365.
[27] Carroll, G. R. Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985,90(6): 1262-1283.
[28] Chen, C. J. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance [J]. R &D Management, 2004,34(3): 311-321.
[29] Chesbrough, H. W., Appleyard, M. M. Open innovation and strategy [J]. California Management Review, 2007,.50(1): 57-76.
[30] Child, J., Faulkner, D. Strategies of Cooperation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[31] Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990,35(1): 128-152.
[32] Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D [J]. Management Science, 2002,48(1): 1-23.
[33] Cukor, P. How GTE laboratories evaluates its university collaborations [J]. Research Technology Management, 1992,35(2): 31–37.
[34] Cummings, J. L., Teng, B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2003,20(1-2): 39-68.
[35] Cyert, R. M., Goodman, P. S. Creating effective universityindustry-alliances: An organizational learning perspective [J].Organizational Dynamics, 1997, 13: 44-57.
[36] Das, T. K., Teng, B. S. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances [J]. Journal of Management, 2000,26(1): 31-61.
[37] Davenport, S., Grimes, C., & Davies, J. 1999. Collaboration and organisational learning: a study of a New Zealand collaborative research program. International Journal of TechnoglyManagement, 18(3): 173-187.
[38] David Lei, John W. Slocum, J., Pitts, R. A. Building cooperative advantage: managing strategic alliances to promote organizational learning [J]. Journal of World Business, 1997,32(3): 203-223.
[39] De Bondt R., Henriques I. Strategic investment with asymmetric spillovers [J].Canadian Journal of Economics 1995,28(3):656-674.
[40] Dechenaux, E., Thursby, M., Thursby, J. Shirking, sharing risk and shelving: the role of university contracts [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2009,27(1): 80-91.
[41] Dill, D. D. University/Industry research collaborations: An analysis of interorganizational relationships [J]. R & D Management, 1990,20(2): 123-129.
[42] Dixon, N. M. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2000.
[43] Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning processes? [J]Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 55-83.
[44] Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(2): 99-126.
[45] Dyer, J. H. Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997,18(7): 535-556.
[46] Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(4): 660-679.
[47] Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., Tsang, E. W. Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: current themes and future prospects [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45(4): 677-690.
[48] Eom, B. Y., Lee, K. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization [J]. Research Policy, 2009,39: 625-639.
[49] Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The Endless Transition: A "Triple Helix" of University-Industry-Government Relations [J]. Minerva, 1998,36(3): 203-208.
[50] Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and“Mode 2”to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations [J].Research Policy, 2000,29(2): 109-123.
[51] Fassin, Y. The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices [J]. Journal of Research Administration, 2000,1(2): 31-41.
[52] Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., Roessner, J. D. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers [J]. Research Policy, 2002,31(3): 457-474.
[53] Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling [J]. Research Policy,2006, 35(2): 309-323.
[54] Freeman, J., Hannan, M. T. Niche width and the dynamics of organizational populations [J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,88(6): 1116-1145.
[55] Fritsch, M., Schwirten, C. Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public researchinstitutions in regional innovation systems [J]. Industry & Innovation, 1999,6(1): 69-83.
[56] Gehring, T. Intermediation in search market [J]s. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 1993,2(01): 97-120.
[57] Geisler, E. Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships [J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,1995, 7(2): 217-229.
[58] Gertler, M. S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there) [J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2003,3(1): 75-99.
[59] Glaister, K. W., Buckley, P. J. Strategic motives for international alliance formation [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 1996,33(3): 301-332.
[60] Gomes, J. F. S., Hurmelinna, P., Amaral, V., et al. Managing relationships of the republic of science and the kingdom of industry [J]. Journal of Workplace Learnning, 2005,17(1/2): 88-98.
[61] Gray, B. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration [J]. Human Relations, 1985,38(10): 911-936.
[62] Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995,38(1): 85-112.
[63] Gulati, R. Alliances and networks [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(4): 293-317.
[64] Gulati, R. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5): 397-420.
[65] Hagedoorn J., Narula R. Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: international and sectoral differences [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(2):265-284.
[66] Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., Scott, J. T. Universities as research partners [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,2003, 85(2): 485-491.
[67] Ham, R. M., Mowery, D. C. Improving the effectiveness of public–private R&D collaboration: case studies at a US weapons laboratory [J]. Research Policy, 1998,26(6): 661-675.
[68] Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12: 83-103.
[69] Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., Prahalad, C. K. Collaborate with your competitors and win [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1989,67(1): 133-139.
[70] Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R. The organizational niche [J]. Sociological Theory,2003,21(4): 309-340.
[71] Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. The population ecology of organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1977, 83(5): 929-984.
[72] HellstrOm, T., Jacob, M. Evaluating and managing the performance of university-industry partnerships: From central rule to dynamic research networks [J]. Evaluation, 1999,5(3): 330-339.
[73] Henderson, R. M., Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990,35(1): 9-30.
[74] Hobday, M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? [J]Research Policy, 2000,29(7-8): 871-893.
[75] Hoppe, H. C., Ozdenoren, E. Intermediation in innovation [J]. International Journal ofIndustrial Organization,2005,23(5-6):483-503.
[76] Howells, J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography [J]. Urban Studies, 2002,39(5): 871-884.
[77] Hyder, A. S., Eriksson, L. T. Success is not enough: The spectacular rise and fall of a strategic alliance between two multinationals [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2005,34(8): 783-796.
[78] Jarrilo, J. C. On strategic networks [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1988,9(1): 31-41.
[79] Jeroen P.J. de Jong, Freel, M. Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms [J]. Research Policy, 2010,39(1): 47-54.
[80] Kadama, M. Creating new business through a strategic innovation community-case study of a new interactive video service in Japen [J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2002,20(4): 289-302.
[81] Kalaignanam, K., Shankar, V., Varadarajan, R. Asymmetric new product development alliances: Win-win or win-lose partnerships? [J]Management Science,2007, 53(3): 357-374.
[82] Kapmeier, F. Dynamics of common learning in learning alliances [EB/OL]. http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2003/proceed/PAPERS/342.pdf. 2009-07-12.
[83] Katz, J. S. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration [J]. Scientometrics, 1994,31(1): 31-43.
[84] Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J. L., Joncas, H. Managing alliance relationships: key challenges in the early stages of collaboration [J]. R&D Management, 2002,32(1): 11-22.
[85] Kodama, T. The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages-An empirical study of TAMA in Japan [J]. Research Policy,2008, 37(8): 1224-1240.
[86] Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions [J]. Journal of Management, 1995,21(4): 657-669.
[87] L??f, H., Brostr?m, A. Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? [J] The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2008,33(1): 73-90.
[88] Lancastre, A., Lages, L. F. The relationship between buyer and a B2B e-marketplace: Cooperation determinants in an electronic market context [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2006,35(6): 774-789.
[89] Landry, R., Traore, N., Godin, B. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity [J]. Higher Education, 1996,32(3): 283-301.
[90] Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(5): 461-477.
[91] Larsen, M. T. Too close for comfort? The effect of university-industry collaboration on the scientific performance of university professors [C]. the DRUID summer conference. Denmark,2007.
[92] Laursen, K., Salter, A. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? [J]Research Policy, 2004,33(8): 1201-1215.
[93] Lee, Y. S. Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy,1996, 25(6): 843-863. 137
[94] Lhuillery, S., Pfister, E. R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data [J]. Research Policy, 2009,38(1): 45-57.
[95] Liyanage, S. Breeding innovation clusters through collaborative research networks [J]. Technovation, 1995,15(9): 553-567.
[96] Lopez-Martinez, R. E., Medellin, E., Scanlon, A. P., et al. Motivations and obstacles to university industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican case [J]. R&D Management, 1994,24(1): 17-30.
[97] Lunnan, R., Haugland, S. A. Predicting and measuring alliance performance: A multidimensional analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(5): 545-556.
[98] Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Sivertsen, G. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values, 1992,17(1): 101-126.
[99] Madhok, A., Tallman, S. B. Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships [J]. Organization Science, 1998,9(3): 326-339.
[100] Mailath, G. J., Samuelson, L. Who wants a good reputation? [J]Review of Economic Studies, 2001,68(2): 415-441.
[101] Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings [J]. Research Policy, 1998,26(7): 773-776.
[102] Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995,20(3): 709-734.
[103] McKelvey, B., Aldrich, H. Populations, natural selection, and applied organizational science [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983,28(1): 101-128.
[104] McPherson, M. An ecology of affiliation [J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,48(4): 519-532.
[105] Meeus, M. T. H., Oerlemans, L. A. G. Firm behaviour and innovative performance:An empirical exploration of the selection-adaptation debate [J]. Research Policy, 2000,29(1): 41-58.
[106] Meyer, J. W., Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1977,82 (2): 340-363.
[107] Monck C.P., Porter R. B., Quintas P., et al. Science parks and the growth of high technology firms [M]. London: CroomHelm, 1988.
[108] Mohr, J., Spekman, R. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15(2): 135-152.
[109] Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003,21(9): 1255-1270.
[110] Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., Guerras-Martin, L. A. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(1): 17-40.
[111] Motohashi, K. University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System [J]. Research Policy,2005, 34(5): 583-594.
[112] Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., Silverman, B. S. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 77-91.
[113] Mowery, D. C., Shane, S. Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer [J]. Management Science,2002, 48(1): v–ix.
[114] Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K. Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda [J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,1995,15: 80-116.
[115] Nelson, R. R. The market economy, and the scientific commons [J]. Research Policy, 2004,33(3): 455-471.
[116] Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[117] Oxley, J. E. Alliances and Performance [J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 2009,26: 147-164.
[118] Pérez‐Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., et al. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Cross‐Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2008, 45(4): 714-744.
[119] Pennings, J. M., Harianto, F. The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992,13(1): 29-46.
[120] Perkmann, M., Neely, A., Walsh, K. How Should Firms Evaluate Success in University-Industry Alliances? A Performance Measurement System [J]. R &D Management, 2011,41(2):202-216.
[121] Peter Lindel?f , L?fsten, H. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2004,29(3): 311-326.
[122] Poppo, L., Zenger, T. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?[ J] Strategic Management Journal, 2002,23(8): 707-725.
[123] Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L.. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996,41(1): 116-145.
[124] Rajiv Sethi, Somanathan E. Understanding reciprocity [J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003,50(1):1-27.
[125] Ring P., Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships [J].Academy of Management Review,1994,19(1):90-118.
[126] Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R. R. American universities and technical advance in industry [J]. Research Policy, 1994,23(3): 323-348.
[127] Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s [J]. R&D Management,1992, 22(3): 221-240.
[128] Rothwell, R., Dodgson, M. External linkages and Innovationsin small and medium-sized enterprises [J]. R & D Management, 1991,21(2): 125-137.
[129] Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., et al. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(3): 393-404.
[130] Santoro, M. D. Success breeds success:: The linkage between relationship intensity andtangible outcomes in industry-university collaborative ventures [J]. The Journal of High Technology Management, 2000,11(2): 255-273.
[131] Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A. K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002, 31(7): 1163-1180.
[132] Saxton, T. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes [J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 1997,40(2): 443-461.
[133] Sherwood, A. L., Covin, J. G.. Knowledge Acquisition in University–Industry Alliances: An Empirical Investigation from a Learning Theory Perspective [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008,25(2): 162-179.
[134] Shohet, S., Prevezer, M. UK biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries [J]. R & D Management,1996, 26(3): 283-298.
[135] Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999,20(7): 595-623.
[136] Slevin, D. P., Pinto, J. K. Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation [J]. Sloan Management Review,1987, 29(1): 33-41.
[137] Spencer, J. W. Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(3): 217-233.
[138] Steven S. Lui, Hang-Yue Ngo.The Role of Trust and Contractual Safeguards on Cooperation in Non-equity Alliances [J]. Journal of Management, 2004,30(4):471-485.
[139] Stuart, T. E., Podolny, J. M. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(1): 21-38.
[140] Sung, T. K. Firm size, networks and innovative activity: evidence from the Korean manufacturing firms [J]. Technological Innovation Studies,2005, 13(3): 1-20.
[141] Szulanski, G. Unpacking stickiness: an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practice inside the firm [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995,Best Paper Proceedings: 437-441.
[142] Teece, D. J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation : Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1992,18(1): 1-25.
[143] Tether, B. S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why:An empirical analysis [J]. Research Policy, 2002,31(6): 947-967.
[144] Tsai, K. H., Wang, J. C. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey [J]. Research Policy, 2009,38(3): 518-526.
[145] Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(5): 996-1004.
[146] Tsang, E. W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: learning‐by‐doing and learning myopia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002,23(9): 835-854.
[147] Vedovello, C. Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximitybetween the agents as a driving force [J]. Technovation, 1997,17(9): 491-502.
[148] Wen B. L. Factors affecting the correlation between interactive mechanism of strategic alliance and technological knowledge transfer performance [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2007,17(2):139-155.
[149] Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2): 171-180.
[150] Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives [J]. Administrative Science Quartely, 1991,36(2): 269-296.
[151] Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., Singh, H. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances [J]. Organization Science, 2002,13(6): 701-713.
[152]包庆德,贾承伯.生态位:概念内涵的完善与外延辐射的拓展[J].自然辩证法研究. 2010,26(11): 43-48.
[153]柴文静,李平.创新生态系统[J]. 21世纪商业评论,2007,2: 47-48.
[154]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立主编.组织与管理研究的实证方法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[155]董静,苟燕楠,吴晓薇.我国产学研合作创新中的知识产权障碍——基于企业视角的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2008,7: 20-25.
[156]段瑞春.产学研合作创新:机遇与挑战(下)[J].中国科技产业: 14-17.
[157]范德成,唐小旭.我国各省市产学研结合技术创新的绩效评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2009,30(1): 66-70.
[158]郭斌,谢志宇,吴惠芳.产学研合作绩效的影响因素及其实证分析[J].科学学研究, 2003,21(S1): 140-147.
[159]郭斌,等.知识经济下产学研合作的模式、机制与绩效评价[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[160]郭妍,徐向艺.企业生态位研究综述:概念、测度及战略运用[J].产业经济评论,2009, 8(2): 105-119.
[161]郭妍,徐向艺. 2009.企业生态位研究综述:概念、测度及战略运用.产业经济评论, 8(2): 105-119.
[162]亨利.埃茨科威兹.创业型大学与创新的三螺旋模型[J].科学学研究, 2009,27(4): 481-488.
[163]胡恩华,郭秀丽.我国产学研合作创新中存在的问题及对策研究[J].科学管理研究, 2002,20(1): 69-72.
[164]胡振华,张宁辉.基于生态位构建的企业动态核心竞争力分析[J].当代财经2010,2: 68-73.
[165]黄鲁成.基于生态学的技术创新行为研究.北京:科学出版社,2007.
[166]稽登科.企业网络对企业技术创新绩效的影响研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学, 2006.
[167]纪秋颖,林健.高校生态位及其评价方法研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2006,8: 93-96.
[168]蒋军锋,张玉韬,王修来.知识演变视角下技术创新网络研究进展与未来方向[J].科研管理, 2010,31(3): 68-77,133.
[169]焦俊,李垣.基于联盟网络的企业知识获得和技术创新[J].研究与发展管理,2008, 20(1): 104-109.
[170]金芙蓉,罗守贵.产学研合作绩效评价指标体系研究[J].科学管理研究, 2009,27(3): 43-46,68.
[171] G.多西编.钟学义译.技术进步与经济理论[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1992.
[172]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[173]李嘉明,甘慧.基于协同学理论的产学研联盟演化机制研究[J].科研管理,2009, 30(3):166-172,212.
[174]李伟,聂鸣,李顺才.影响技术联盟绩效的企业组织行为特征研究[J].中国软科学2009,7: 124-133,150.
[175]李新男.创新“产学研结合”组织模式构建产业技术创新战略联盟[J].中国软科学2007,5: 9-12,42.
[176]林盛杰,张家皋.谈“产学研合作”质量评估体系的建立[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版), 2000,22(5): 28-31.
[177]刘鹤玲.亲缘、互惠与驯顺:利他理论的三次突破[J].自然辩证法研究,2000,16(3):7-11,29.
[178]刘雯雯,杨震宁,王以华.科技园管理创新、战略动机和企业创新绩效:一个整合模型[J].科学学研究, 2009,27(5): 783-792.
[179]刘璇华.产学研合作中组织间学习效果的影响因素及对策分析[J].研究与发展管理, 2007,19(4): 112-118.
[180]刘学,项晓峰,江岚,等.提高研发联盟的绩效:加强控制还是增进关系—基于中国制药产业的实证分析[J].管理学家(学术版),2008, 1(4): 316-326.
[181]刘益,李垣,杜旖丁.战略联盟模式选择的分析框架:资源、风险与结构模式间关系的概念模型[J].管理工程学报,2004, 18(3): 33-37.
[182]柳卸林,王军,潘铁.政府应如何化解产学研合作中的矛盾—日本VLSI和北京长风联盟的启示[J].科技潮, 2007,9:68-69.
[183]鲁若愚.企业大学合作创新的机理研究[D].博士学位论文,清华大学,2002.
[184]马德秀.瞄准需求突破障碍大力推进产学研用结合[J].中国高等教育, 2010,12:18-20.
[185]马庆国.管理统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2002.
[186]马世骏.现代生态学透视[M].北京:科学出版社,1990.
[187]迈克尔.波特著.陈小悦译.竞争优势[M].北京:华夏出版社,1997.
[188]孟祥娟,石宾.论产学研联盟相关的知识产权问题[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2007,2: 104-109.
[189]潘镇,李晏墅.联盟中的信任—一项中国情景下的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2008,4: 44-54.
[190]钱辉.生态位、因子互动与企业演化[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[191]尚玉昌.生态学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[192]生延超.创新投入补贴还是创新产品补贴:技术联盟的政府策略选择[J].中国管理科学,2008,16(6):184-192.
[193]石高宏,李灵燕.强烈的互惠主义:一种关于企业内合作行为的新解释[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2004,6(1):54-59.
[194]史占中.企业战略联盟[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2001.
[195]孙彩虹,于辉,齐建国.企业合作R&D中资源投入的机会主义行为[J].系统工程理论与实践. 2010,30(3): 447-455.
[196]苏中锋,谢恩,李垣.基于不同动机的联盟控制方式选择及其对联盟绩效的影响—中国企业联盟的实证分析[J].南开管理评论, 2007,10(5):4-11.
[197]孙儒泳,李博,诸葛阳,等.普通生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993.
[198]王刚.关于生态位定义的探讨及生态位重叠计测公式改进的研究[J].生态学报, 1984,4(2): 119-127.
[199]王文岩,孙福全,申强.产学研合作模式的分类、特征及选择[J].中国科技论坛2008,5:37-40.
[200]王孝斌,李福刚.地理邻近在区域创新中的作用机理及其启示[J].经济地理, 2007,27(4): 543-546,552.
[201]王秀丽,王利剑.产学研合作创新效率的DEA评价[J].统计与决策2009,3: 54-56.
[202]王雪原.我国产学研联盟模式与机制研究[D].硕士学位论文,哈尔滨理工大学, 2006.
[203]王颖.金融危机背景下中部地区产学研合作现状及对策分析[J].科技进步与对策, 2009,26(24): 17-19.
[204]威廉姆森(Williamson, O. E.).资本主义经济制度[M].段毅才,等译.北京:商务印书馆, 2004.
[205]温珂,周华东.联盟能力视角下的产学研合作联盟促进政策研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2010,8: 10-14.
[206]吴明隆. SPSS统计应用实务—问卷分析与应用统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[207]武玉英,田萌.基于生态位理论的企业战略联盟形成研究[J].统计与决策2008,6: 174-176.
[208]西格法德.哈里森.日本的技术与创新管理—从寻求技术诀窍到寻求合作者[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[209]习明.中小企业集群的形成机制和发展问题研究[D].博士学位论文.厦门大学,2008.
[210]谢识予.经济博弈论(第三版) [M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[211]邢以群,吴征.从企业生态位看技术变迁对企业发展的影响[J].科学学研究2005,4: 495-499.
[212]徐飞.战略管理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
[213]徐志坚.以产学研合作为突破,加快建设国家创新体系[EB/OL]. http://www.360cxy.cn/Front/InfoTemp.aspx?InfoID=667160,2010-09-03.
[214]许芳,李建华.企业生态位原理及模型研究[J].中国软科学2005,5:130-139.
[215]谢科范,刘海林.产学研合作共建研发实体的博弈分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2006,10:27-30,109.
[216]谢识予.经济博弈论(第三版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[217]薛卫,曹建国,易难,雷家骗.企业与大学技术合作的绩效:基于合作治理视角的实证研究[J].中国软科学2010,3: 120-132,185.
[218]薛卫,易难,曹建国,雷家骕.产学研合作中组织学习中介效应的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理2010,4: 28-35.
[219]严建援,颜承捷,秦凡.企业战略联盟的动机、形态及其绩效的研究综述[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版)2003,6: 83-91.
[220]杨光.高层人员的商业友谊与战略联盟的稳定性研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2009,27(2): 77-80.
[221]易余胤,肖条军,盛昭瀚.合作研发中机会主义行为的演化博弈分析[J].管理科学学报, 2005,8(4):80-87.
[222]余光胜.企业竞争优势根源的理论演进[J].外国经济与管理, 2002,24(10): 2-7.
[223]余津津.现代西方声誉理论述评[J].当代财经2003,11: 18-22.
[224]袁胜军,黄立平,刘仲英.产学研合作中存在的问题及对策分析[J].科学管理研究, 2006,24(6): 49-52.
[225]张光明,谢寿昌.生态位概念演变与展望[J].生态学杂志,1997,16(6): 46-51.
[226]张洪潮,何任.非对称企业合作创新的进化博弈模型分析[J].中国管理科学,2010,18(6):163-170.
[227]张丽萍.从生态位到技术生态位[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002,3:23-25.
[228]张米尔,武春友.产学研合作创新的交易费用[J].科学学研究,2001, 19(1): 89-92.
[229]张万宽.高新技术领域的产学研技术联盟绩效研究—基于资源依附和交易成本的分析视角.科技进步与对策, 2008,25(6): 12-16.
[230]郑师章,吴千红,王海波,等.普通生态学—原理、方法和应用[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1994.
[231]周竺,黄瑞华.产学研合作中的知识产权冲突及协调[J].研究与发展管理, 2004,16(1): 90-94.
[232]朱春全.生态位态势理论与扩充假说[J].生态学报,1997, 17(3): 324-332.
[233]朱学彦.基于嵌入性关系和组织间学习的产学研知识联盟研究[J].博士学位论文,浙江大学, 2009.
[234]祝东伟.国外产学研合作典型模式的研究与启示[J].中国科技产业2006,12: 78-81.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |