Out of the Ivory Tower: Characteristics of Institutions Meeting the Research Needs of Industry

Tornquist, Kristi M.; Kallsen, Lincoln A.

doi:10.2307/2943776

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gulbrandsen and Smeby (2005) established that Norwegian professors who receive large amounts of industry funding publish more than their colleagues. Also, the quality of the university has been found to increase industry's utilisation of academic research (Tornquist and Kallsen, 1994). …”

Section: Previous Research: Faculty Quality and Engagement In Technolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate how universities' research quality shapes their engagement with industry. Previous research has predominantly found a positive relationship between academics' research quality and their commercialization activities. Here we use industry involvement measures that are broader than commercialization and indicate actual collaboration, i.e. collaborative research, contract research and consulting. We hypothesize that the relationship between faculty quality and industry engagement differs across disciplines, depending on complementarities between industrial and academic work, and resource requirements. Using a dataset covering all UK universities, we find that in technology-oriented disciplines, departmental faculty quality is positively related to industry involvement. In the medical and biological sciences we find a positive effect of departmental faculty quality but establish that this does not apply to star scientists. In the social sciences, we find some support for a negative relationship between faculty quality and particularly the more applied forms of industry involvement. The implication for science policy makers and university managers is that differential approaches to promoting university-industry relationships are required.

show abstract

Section: Previous Research: Faculty Quality and Engagement In Technolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, several studies focus on the adverse effects of privatization on the research ethics and practices of faculty (Anderson, 2001;Blumenthal, Campbell, Causino, & Louis, 1996;Campbell & Slaughter, 1999;Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989), and on resource allocation patterns in research universities (Slaughter, 1998). On the other hand, many scholars champion the desirability and significance of connecting with industry to enhance the economy and the growth of higher education (Clark, 2001;Fairweather, 1988;Geiger, 1990Geiger, , 1993Matkin, 1990;Stahler & Tash, 1994;Tornquist & Kallsen, 1994).…”

Section: Background Of Graduate Employee Unionizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graduate Employee Unionization as Symbol of and Challenge to the Corporatization of U.S. Research Universities

Rhoads

Rhoades²

2005

The Journal of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The studies have included quality and status factors, such as faculty salaries and reputation (Geiger 1993;Fairweather 1988;Mansfield 1995;Tornquist and Kallsen 1994); graduate student quality (Owen-Smith, 2001); membership in AAU (Slaughter 1993). They have also examined institutional characteristics, such as land-grant status (Tornquist and Kallsen 1994); public control (Slaughter and Leslie 1997); size (Tolbert); historical relations with industry (Geiger 1993;Fairweather 1988); president's background (Cote and Cote 1993). Some studies have also included measures of commitment to science, such as size of faculty and post-doctoral student populations in science (Owen-Smith 2001); total research expenditures and federal funding in science (Mansfield 1995;Owen-Smith 2001;Tolbert 1985;Tornquist and Kallsen 1994); investment in research-related infrastructure (Geiger 1993;Fairweather 1988).…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

University–industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low- and middle-level performers

Turk-Bicakci

Brint

2005

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following landmark legislation passed more than 20 years ago, universityindustry relationships have now become central to understanding the changing role of research universities in American Society. The paper analyzes the development of university-industry partnerships during the 1990s. Past studies have used a broad array of measures of ties and a variety of research methodologies, but they have shared a focus on top collaborators or on samples of universities skewed toward the top. However, findings based on top collaborators may not be valid for other universities. Universities involved in mid-to low-levels of collaboration are qualitatively different in many ways from the more extensively studied set of top collaborators, suggesting that characteristics affecting university-industry ties may not be the same for these institutions. The paper shifts the focus away from top collaborators to this sizable and less studied majority. In general, we find that the same characteristics predicting high levels of involvement for the sample as a whole also predict high levels of involvement for the sub-sample of mid-and low-level collaborators. However, We find some particular characteristics of these institutions, such as land grant status, are also associated with stronger ties to industry, and that some characteristics of 25 top institutions do not predict the level of involvement of these lower-level collaborators. We will discuss whether the licensing of new technology is likely ever to become an important source of net revenues for current middle and low-level collaborators. Our findings raise doubts about whether many universities below the top 25 will earn substantial net revenues from licensing, though they do not dispute the potential service value of these ties. The study is based on examination of a wide range of potential influences on universityindustry collaboration for institutions that are not currently among the most heavily involved in partnerships. These include status, other institutional characteristics (such as size and control), investment in science and engineering, and characteristics of offices or technology transfer.

show abstract

Out of the Ivory Tower: Characteristics of Institutions Meeting the Research Needs of Industry

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry

Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry

Graduate Employee Unionization as Symbol of and Challenge to the Corporatization of U.S. Research Universities

University–industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low- and middle-level performers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About