Intermingling academic and business activities: A new direction for science and universities?

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 684-704

  Tuunainen, Juha ^a   Knuuttila, Tarja ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Boundaries; Entrepreneurial university; Information technology; University industry relations

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350542682     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243909337118     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Blumenthal, D., N. Causino, E. Campbell, and K. Seashore Louis. 1996. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences-An industry survey. The New England Journal of Medicine 334:368-73.
2. Blumenthal, D., M. Gluck, K. Seashore Louis, and D. Wise. 1986a. Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science 231(4735):242-46.
3. Blumenthal, D., M. Gluck, K. Seashore Louis, M.A. Stoto, and D. Wise. 1986b. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. Science 232(4756):1361-66.
4. Blumer, H. 1954. What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review 19(1):3-10.
5. Carlsson, B., and A.C. Fridh. 2002. Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12(1-2):199-232.
6. Clark, B.R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon.
7. DiBona, C., S. Ockman, and M. Stone. 1999. Open sources: Voices from the revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
8. Etzkowitz, H. 1996. Conflicts of interest and commitment in academic science in the United States. Minerva 34(3):259-77.
9. Etzkowitz, H. 2002. Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks. Science and Public Policy 29(2):115-28.
10. Etzkowitz, H. 2003a. Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information 42(3):293-337.
11. Etzkowitz, H. 2003b. Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32(1):109-21.
12. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R. Cantisano Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29(2):313-30.
13. Geiger, R.L. 1988. Milking the sacred cow: Research and the quest for useful knowledge in the american university since 1920. Science, Technology, & Human Values 13(3-4):332-48.
14. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
15. Gieryn, T.F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
16. Godin, B. 1998. Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28(3):465-83.
17. Grossman, J.H., P.P. Reid, and R.P. Morgan. 2001. Contributions of academic research to industrial performance in five industry sectors. Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1-2):143-52.
18. Gulbrandsen, M. 2005. "But Peter's in it for the money"-The liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST 18(1-2):49-75.
19. Guston, D.H. 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between us politics and science: The rôle of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29(1):87-111.
20. Kenney, M. 1986. Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Kerr, C. 1966. The uses of the university. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
22. Kinchy, A.J., and D.L. Kleinman. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33(6):869-96.
23. Kleinman, D.L. 2003. Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
24. Kleinman, D.L., and S.P. Vallas. 2006. Contradiction in convergence: Universities and industry in the biotechnology field. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel and K. Moore, 35-62. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
25. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
26. Mody, C. 2006. Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981-1996. Technology and Culture 47(1):56-80.
27. Mowery, D.C., and B.N. Sampat. 2006. Universities in national innovation systems. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, and R. R. Nelson, 209-39. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28. Nieminen, M. 2005. Academic research in change. Transformation of finnish university policies and university research during the 1990s. Saarijärvi: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.
29. Orsenigo, L. 1989. The emergence of biotechnology: Institutions and markets in industrial innovation. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
30. Owen-Smith, J. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy 32(6):1081-104.
31. Owen-Smith, J. 2006. Commercial imbroglios: Proprietary science and the contemporary university. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel and K. Moore, 63-90. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
32. Pirnay, F., B. Surlemont, and F. Nlemvo. 2003. Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics 21(4):355-69.
33. Powell, W.W., K.W. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr, and J. Owen-Smith. 1999. Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Edited by S. B, Andrews and D. Knoke. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16:129-59.
34. Powell, W.W., and J. Owen-Smith. 1998. Universities and the market for intellectual property in life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(2):253-77.
35. Rappert, B., and A. Webster. 1997. Regimes of ordering: The commercialization of intellectual property rights in industrial-academic collaborations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9(2):115-30.
36. Rothblatt, S. 1997. The modern university and its discontents: The fate of Newman's legacies in Britain and America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Rothblatt, S., and B. Wittrock, eds. 1993. The European and American university since 1800: Historical and sociological essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Saari, E. 1999. Dynamics of collaboration: The case of Finnish and American aerosol research groups. Science Studies 12(1):21-43.
39. Shinn, T., and E. Lamy. 2006. Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy 35(10):1465-76.
40. Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
41. Tuunainen, J. 2004. Hybrid practices: The dynamics of university research and emergence of a biotechnology company. Department of Sociology, Research Reports no. 244. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/3404/hybridpr.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed December 15, 2008.].
42. Tuunainen, J. 2005. Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science 35(2):173-210.
43. Tuunainen, J., and Knuuttila, T. 2008. Determining the norms of science: From epistemological criteria to local struggle on organizational rules? In Cultural dimensions on higher education, ed. J. Välimaa and O. -H. Ylijoki, 138-53. Springer: Dordrecht.
44. Vallas, S.P., and D.L. Kleinman. 2007. Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review 6(2):283-311.