From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities

Research Policy

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1081-1104

  Owen Smith, Jason ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Accumulative advantage; Institutional change; Intellectual property rights; Status order

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867975571     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00111-7     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. P.D. Allison, and J.A. Stewart Productivity differences among scientists: evidence for accumulative advantage American Sociological Review 39 1974 596 606
2. P.D. Allison, J.S. Long, and T.K. Krauz Cumulative advantage and inequality in science American Sociological Review 47 5 1982 615 625
3. A. Arora Testing for complementarities in reduced form regressions: a note Economics Letters 50 1 1996 51 55
4. A. Arora, and A. Gambardella Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of large firms in biotechnology Journal of Industrial Economics 38 4 1990 362 379
5. Arora, A.; David, P.; Gambardella, A.; 1998. Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects on research group productivity. Annales d' Economie et des Statistique 49/50.
6. Athey, S.; Stern, S.; 1998. An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. NBER Working Paper No. 6600.
7. T.R. Behrens, and D.O. Gray Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes Research Policy 30 2 2001 179 199
8. R. Bentley, and R. Blackburn Changes in academic research over time: a study of institutional accumulative advantage Research in Higher Education 31 4 1990 327 353
9. J. Berkovitz, M. Feldman, I. Feller, and R. Burton Organizational structures as determinants of academic patenting and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1 2001 21 35
10. D. Blumenthal, N.N. Causino, E. Campbell, and K.S. Lewis Relations between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences - an industry survey New England Journal of Medicine 334 1996 368 373
11. Bonitz, Bruckner, M.E.; Scharnhorst, A.; 1997. Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics 40(3), 407-422.
12. E.G. Campbell, J.S. Weissman, N. Causino, and D. Blumenthal Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials Research Policy 29 2000 303 312
13. Chubin, D.; Hackett, E.J.; 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. State University of New York Press, New York.
14. Cole, J.R.; Cole, S.R.; 1973. Social Stratification in Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
15. Dasgupta, P.; David, P.; 1987. Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In: Feiwel, G.R. (Ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York University Press, New York, pp. 519-542.
16. P. Dasgupta, and P. David Toward a new economics of science Research Policy 23 5 1994 487 521
17. R.S. Eisenberg Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research Virginia Law Review 82 1996 1663 1710
18. Etzkowitz, H.; Webster, A.; Healey, P.; 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia Albany. State University of New York Press, New York.
19. Florida, R.; 1999. The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science And Technology. Online http://www.nap.edu/issues/ 15.4/florida.htm.
20. Hayduk, L.A.; 1987. Structural Equation Modeling in LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
21. M. Heller, and R.S. Eisenberg Can patents deter innovation: the anticommons in biomedical research Science 280 5364 1998 698 701
22. R. Henderson, A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988 The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 1 1998 119 127
23. D. Hicks, T. Breitzman, D. Olivastro, and K. Hamilton The changing composition of innovative activity in the US - a portrait based on patent analysis Research Policy 30 4 2001 681 703
24. R. Jensen, and M. Thursby Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university innovations American Economic Review 191 1 2001 240 259
25. Joreskog, K.; Sorbom, D.; 1996. LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide. SSI Scientific Software, New York.
26. Kaghan, W.N.; 2001. Harnessing a public conglomerate: professional technology transfer managers and the entrepreneurial university. In: Croissant, J.; Restivo, S. (Eds.), Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values. State University of New York Press, New York.
27. B. Keith, and N. Babchuk The quest for institutional recognition: a longitudinal analysis of scholarly productivity and academic prestige among sociology departments Social Forces 76 4 1998 1495 1533
28. Lee, Y.S.; 1994. Technology transfer and public policy in an era of global economic competition. Policy Studies Journal 22 (2) 260-266.
29. B. Levitt, and J.G. March Organizational learning Annual Review of Sociology 14 1988 319 340
30. Maddala, G.S.; 1994. Introduction to Econometrics. Macmillan, New York.
31. S. Mahdi, and K. Pavitt Key national factors in the emergence of computational chemistry firms International Journal of Innovation Management 1 4 1997 355 386
32. McCray, W.P.; Croissant, J.; 2001. Entrepreneurship in technology transfer offices: making work visible. In: Croissant, J.; Restivo, S. (Eds.), Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values. State University of New York Press, New York.
33. R.K. Merton The Matthew effect in science Science 159 3810 1968 635 659
34. R.K. Merton The Matthew effect in science. II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property Isis 79 299 1988 606 623
35. D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis The growth of patenting and licensing by us universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 Research Policy 30 1 2001 99 119
36. F. Narin, S.G. McMillan, and D. Deeds An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology Research Policy 29 1 2000 1 8
37. National Science Board, 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2000. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
38. A. Neuer Academic technology transfer offices evolve into marketing units The Scientist 9 8 1995 1 4
39. Noll, R.G. (Ed.), 1998. Challenges to Research Universities. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
40. Owen-Smith, J.; 2000. Public science, private science: the causes and consequences of patenting by research one universities. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.
41. Owen-Smith, J.; 2001. New arenas for academic competition: accumulative advantage and stratification in university patenting. In: Croissant, J.; Restivo, S. (Eds.), Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values. State University of New York Press, New York, pp. 23-54.
42. Owen-Smith, J.; 2002. Collaboration as organizational learning: the case of university technology transfer. Working Paper, University of Michigan.
43. Owen-Smith, J.; Powell, W.W.; 2001a. Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. In: Vallas, S.P. (Ed.), The Transformation of Work. JAI Press, New York, pp. 109-140.
44. J. Owen-Smith, and W.W. Powell To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1/2 2001 99 114
45. Packer, K.; Webster, A.; 1996. Patenting culture in science: reinventing the wheel of scientific credibility. Science, Technology & Human Values 21 (4) 427-453.
46. W.W. Powell, and J. Owen-Smith Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17 2 1998 253 277
47. Sampat, B.N.; Nelson, R.R.; 2000. The emergence and standardization of university technology transfer offices: a case study of institutional change. Working Paper, Columbia University.
48. Sayrs, L.W.; 1989. Pooled Time Series Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
49. Schlesinger, R.; 2001. For BU, lobbying pays a smart return. Boston Globe 5/6/2001, A1.
50. Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.; Atwater, L.; Link, A.; 2002. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, in press.
51. Sine, W.; Shane, S.; Di Gregorio, D.; 2001. The halo effect and technology licensing: the influences of university prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Working Paper, R.H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.
52. Slaughter, S.; Leslie, L.; 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and The Entrepeneurial University. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
53. J. Thursby, and S. Kemp Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing Research Policy 31 1 2002 109 124
54. Zolla-Panzer, S.; 1994. The professor, the university, and industry. Scientific American (September) 72-77.