R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial?

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-23

  Powers, Joshua B ^a  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Licensing; Technology transfer; University entrepreneurship

Indexed keywords

EID: 3843100445     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000010044.41663.a0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Association of University Technology Managers (1996). AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual, Author, Norwalk, CT.
2. Association of University Technology Managers (1999). AUTM Licensing Survey FY 1999, Author, Norwalk, CT.
3. BankBoston (1997). MIT: The Impact of Innovation, Author, Boston.
4. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99-120.
5. Battelle Memorial Institute and State Science & Technology Institute (1998). Survey of State Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1995, Author, Washington, DC.
6. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E. G., and Louis, K. S. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334: 368-373.
7. Bowie, N. E. (1994). University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
8. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29: 627-655.
9. Bray, M. J., and Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 385-392.
10. Brett, A., Gibson, D., and Smilor, R. (1991). University Spin-Off Companies: Economic Development, Faculty Entrepreneurs, and Technology Transfer, Rowman & Little-field, Savage, MD.
11. Campbell, T. I., and Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators' attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. The Journal of Higher Education 70: 309-351.
12. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., and Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll, R. (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 171-200.
13. Daft, R. L. (2000). Organizational Theory & Design, Southwestern College, Cincinnati.
14. Deeds, D. L., Decarolis, D., and 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.
15. DiGregorio, D., and Shane, S. (2001). Why Do Some Universities Generate More StartUps than Others? Unpublished manuscript.
16. Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-governmental relations. Research Policy 29: 109-123.
17. Etzkowitz, H., and Stevens, A. J. (1998). Inching toward industrial policy: The university's role in government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the United States. In: Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., and Healey, A. (eds.), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, State University of New York, Albany, pp. 215-238.
18. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., and Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, State University of New York, Albany.
19. Fairweather, J. (1988). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lessons for Colleges, Universities, and Industry. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DC.
20. Faulkner, W., and Senker, J. (1994). Making sense of diversity: Public-private sector research linkage in three technologies. Research Policy 23: 673-695.
21. Feller, I. (2000). Social contracts and the impact of matching fund requirements on American research universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22(1): 91-98.
22. 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.
23. Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. In: Cohen, W., and Florida, R. (eds.), Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Oxford University Press, London, England, pp. 67-73.
24. Flynn, D. W. (1993). A critical exploration of sponsorship, infrastructure, and new organizations. Small Business Economics 5: 129-156.
25. Gregory, W. D., and Sheahen, T. P. (1991). Technology transfer by spin-off companies versus licensing. In: Brett, A., Gibson, D., and Smilor, R. (eds.), University Spin-Off Companies: Economic Development, Faculty Entrepreneurs, and Technology Transfer, Rowman & Littlefield, Savage, MD, pp. 133-152.
26. Hauksson, A. G. (1998). The Commercialization of University Research Discoveries: Are University Technology Transfer Offices Stimulating the Process? Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
27. Institute for Higher Education Policy (1999). Putting the Pieces Together, Author, Washington, DC.
28. Levine, A. (1997, January 31). Higher education's new status as a mature industry. Chronicle of Higher Education 43: A48.
29. Levy, S. (1998, November 9). The hot new tech cities. Newsweek 132: 44-50.
30. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied Regression: An Introduction, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
31. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77: 55-65.
32. Mansfield, E., and Lee, J. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy 25: 1047-1058.
33. National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators 2000, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
34. National Science Foundation (1999). What is the State Government Role in the R&D Enterprise? Author, Washington, DC.
35. National Science Foundation (2000). Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges: Fiscal Year 2000, Author, Washington, DC.
36. Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0: Guide to Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
37. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell, London.
38. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
39. Porter, M. E. (2001). Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness, Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC, p. 19.
40. Pouder, R., and St. John, C. H. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review 21: 1192-1224.
41. Powers, J. B. (2000). Academic Entrepreneurship in Higher Education: Institutional Effects on Performance of University Technology Transfer. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
42. Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education 74: 1-25.
43. Press, E., and Washburn, J. (2000, March). The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 39-54.
44. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford University, New York.
45. Roberts, E. B., and Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management 26: 17-48.
46. Rogers, J., and Bozeman, B. (1997). Basic research and technology transfer in federal laboratories. Journal of Technology Transfer 22(3): 37-48.
47. Rosenberg, N., and Nelson, R.R. (1993). American universities and technical advances in industry. Research Policy 23: 323-348.
48. Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
49. Slaughter, S., and Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism-Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
50. State Science & Technology Institute (1997). State Science and Technology Strategic Planning: Creating Economic Opportunity, Author, Washington DC.
51. Tornatzky, L. G. (2000). Building State Economies by Promoting University-Industry Technology Transfer, National Governor's Association, Washington DC.
52. United States General Accounting Office (1998). Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities (GAO Publication No. B-275366), Author, Washington DC.
53. United States Patent Office (2002). U.S. Colleges and Universities-Utility Patent Grants, Calendar Years 1969-2000. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://www .uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/asgn/ table_1.htm