The instructional benefits from faculty participation in industrial outreach

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 429-435

  McKinnis, David R ^a   McNamara, Kevin T ^a   Kuczek, Thomas ^a,b   Salvendy, Gavriel ^a,c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; PERSONNEL TRAINING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TEACHING;

INDUSTRIAL OUTREACH; INDUSTRIAL TRAINING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 19644399369     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00623.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Cantlon, J.E., and H. Koenig, "Global Economic Competitiveness and the Land-Grant University," Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 1, 1990, pp. 40-46.
2. Fairweather, J.S., "The University's Role in Economic Development: Lessons for Academic Leaders," SRA Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, Winter, 1990, pp. 5-11.
3. Lee, Y.S., and R. Gaertner, "Technology Transfer From University to Industry: A Large-Scale Experiment With Technology Development and Commercialization," Policy Studies Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1994, pp. 384-389.
4. National Science Board, "The Competitive Strength of U.S. Industrial Science and Technology: Strategic Issues," Washington, DC, National Science Foundation, 1992.
5. Office of Technology Assessment, "Where We Stand: Public Policy and Technology," Making Things Better; Competing in Manufacturing, Wash., DC, Congress of the United States, NTIS No. PB90-205469, OTA-ITE-443, Feb., 1990, pp. 173-184.
6. National Science and Technology Council, Manufacturing Infrastructure: Enabling the Nation's Manufacturing Capacity, Wash., DC, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technological Innovation, Report of the Subcommittee on Manufacturing Infrastructure, Apr., 1997.
7. National Research Council, Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturer's, (Report No. ISBN 0-309-04982-2), Wash., DC, National Academy Press, 1993.
8. Shapira, P., "Modern Times: Learning from State Initiatives in Industrial Extension and Technology Transfer," Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, Aug., 1990, pp. 186-202.
9. Clarke, M.K., and E. N. Dobson, Increasing the Competitiveness of America's Manufacturer: A Review of State Industrial Extension Programs, Wash., DC, National Governors' Association, 1991.
10. Cote, L.S., and M. K. Cote, "Economic Development Activity Among Land-Grant Institutions," Journal of Higher Education, vol. 64, no. 1, January/February, 1993, pp. 55-73.
11. Fairweather, J.S., Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lessons for Colleges, Universities, and Industry, Wash., DC, Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 307 841, Report No. ISBN-0-913317-50-0, 1988.
12. Shapira, P., "Modernizing Small Manufacturers in the United States and Japan: Public Technological Infrastructures and Strategies," Technological Infrastructure Policy: An International Perspective, M. Teubal, D. Foray, M. Justman and E. Zuscovitch (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1996, pp. 285-334.
13. Steinnes, D.N., "On Understanding and Evaluating the University's Evolving Economic Development Policy," Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 3, 1987, pp. 214-225.
14. Jones, R.C., B. S. Oberst, and C. S. Lewis, "The Land-Grant Model," Change, May/June, 1990, pp. 11-17.
15. Roessner, J.D. and A. Wise, "Public Policy and Emerging Sources of Technology and Technical Information Available to Industry," Policy Studies Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1994, pp. 349-358.
16. Geisler, E. and A. H. Rubenstein, "University-Industry Relations: A Review of Major Issues," Cooperative Research and Development: The University Government Relationship, A.N. Link and G. Tassey (eds.), Kluwer, Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1989.
17. Jones, B.D., and A. Vedlitz, "Higher Education Policies and Economic Growth in the American States," Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1, 1988, pp. 78-87.
18. Northeast-Midwest Institute, "Education Incorporated: School-Business Cooperation for Economic Growth," Quorum Books, New York, NY, 1988.
19. Parnell, D., Dateline 2000: The New Higher Education Agenda, Community College Press, Washington, DC, 1990.
20. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, The Competitive Edge: Universities and Industry Working Together, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, DC, May 1994.
21. Shapira, P., "Extending Manufacturing Extension," Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, 1998, pp. 45-50.
22. Shapira, P., J.D. Roessner, and R. Barke, "Federal-State Collaboration in Industrial Modernization," Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
23. Shapira, P., Best Practices for Industrial Modernization, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy, Atlanta, GA, Dec., 1993.
24. Kellogg Commission, Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Report No. 3, Washington, DC, Feb., 1999.
25. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment: Working and Looking for Work, Public Data Query, 1990 and 2000, www.bls.gov.
26. "New Developments in State S&T Policy: Highlights from the SSTI Weekly Digest," State Science & Technology Institute, Mar., 2000.
27. Rodeghier, M., Surveys with Confidence, Chicago, IL, SPSS, Inc., 1996.
28. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, "Fall Stag" survey, NCES 2000-164, 1995, p. 11.
29. Shapira, P., "Modern Times: Learning from State Initiatives in Industrial Extension and Technology Transfer, Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, Aug., 1990, pp. 186-202.
30. Powers, D.R., et al., Higher Education in Partnership with Industry, Josey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1988, pp. 4-5, 8-19, 22-29, 88-93.
31. American Association of State Colleges and Universities and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Urban Community Service at AASCU and NASULGC Institutions; A Report on Conditions and Activities, American Association of State Colleges and Universities and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, DC, 1995.
32. Fairweather, J.S., "Faculty Reward Structures: Toward Institutional and Professional Homogenization," Research in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 5, Oct., 1993, pp. 603-623.
33. Lee, J.A., D. M. Castella, and S. G. Middleton, "Faculty Perceptions of Academe's Evaluation System," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, no. 3, July, 1997, pp. 263-267.
34. Marchant, G.J. and I. Newman, "Faculty Activities and Rewards: Views from Education Administrators in the USA," Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 145-152.