Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer

Journal of Higher Education

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2003, Pages

  Powers, Joshua B ^a  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037280350     PISSN: 00221546     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2003.11777186     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 427-454.
2. Association of University Technology Managers. (1998). AUTM Licensing Survey FY 1998. Norwalk, CT: AUTM.
3. Barboza, D. (1998, September 20). Loving a stock, not wisely but too well: The price of obsession with a promising start-up. The New York Times, pp. 1 and 13.
4. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
5. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224-1228.
6. Campbell, T. I. (1997). Public policy for the 21st century: Addressing potential conflicts in university-industry collaboration. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 353-379.
7. Campbell, T. I., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators' attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 309-351.
8. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. Noll (Ed.), Challenge to the research university. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
9. Deeds, D. L., Decarolis, D., & Coombs, J. E. (1997). The impact of firm-specific capabilities on the amount of capital raised in an initial public offering: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 31-46.
10. Deeds, D. L., Decarolis, D., & Coombs, J. E. (1999). The impact of firm-specific capabilities on the amount of capital raised in an initial public offering: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953-968.
11. Dill, D. D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: The organization and management of American university technology transfer units. Higher Education, 29, 369-384.
12. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.
13. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
14. Faulkner, W., & Senker, J. (1994). Making sense of diversity: Public-private sector research linkage in three technologies. Research Policy, 23, 673-695.
15. Feller, I. (1997). Technology transfer from universities. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 1-42). New York: Agathon.
16. Finkle, T. A. (1998). The relationship between boards of directors and initial public offerings in the biotechnology industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(3), 5-29.
17. Flynn, D. W. (1993). A critical exploration of sponsorship, infrastructure, and new organizations. Small Business Economics, 5, 129-156.
18. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
19. Hu, S., & Mossier, D. (2000). Willingness to pay and preference for private institutions. Research in Higher Education, 41, 685-701.
20. Lawrence P.R. & Lorsch J.W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
21. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131.
22. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55-65.
23. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25, 1047-1058.
24. Marcus, A. D. (1999, June 24). MIT students, lured to new tech firms, get caught in a bind. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A6.
25. Matkin, G. W. (1990). Technology transfer and the university. New York: American Council on Education.
26. National Science Board. (1998). Science & engineering indicators 1998. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
27. National Science Foundation. (1997). Survey of research and development expenditures at universities and colleges, fiscal year 1997. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Paulsen, M. B. (1996). Higher education and state workforce productivity. Thought and Action, 12(1), 55-77.
28. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organizational theory: Problems & prospects. New York: Oxford University.
29. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
30. Pouder, R., & St John, C. H. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1192-1224.
31. Press, E., & Washburn, J. (2000, March). The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 39-54.
32. Riley, R. J. (1998). Technology transfer cash cow patents. Washington DC: Alliance for American Innovation.
33. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University.
34. Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 17-48.
35. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism - Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns-Hopkins University Press.
36. Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 63-76.
37. Thursby, J. G. & Kemp, S. (1999). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Unpublished manuscript.
38. United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Technology transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by research universities (GAO Publication No. B-275366). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
39. Von Eye, A., & Schuster, C. (1998). Regression analysis for the social sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
41. Wilson, M., & Szygenda, S. (1991). Promoting university spin-offs through equity participation. In A. Brett, D. Gibson, & R. Smilor (Eds.), University spin-off companies: Economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer (pp. 153-163). Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
42. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36, 65-86.