The co-evolution of third stream activities in UK higher education

Business History

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 236-258

  Lockett, Andy ^a   Wright, Mike ^b   Wild, Andrew ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

co evolution; government; higher education; third stream; universities

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC HISTORY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HIGHER EDUCATION; HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY; HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84874187995     PISSN: 00076791     EISSN: 17437938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2012.704511     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. 2004. Where Do Resources Come From? The Role of Idiosyncratic Situations. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 887-907.
2. Amdam, R. 2007. "Business Education". In The Oxford Handbook of Business History, Edited by: Jones, G. and Zeitlin, J. 581-602. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Barnett, R. 1997. Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham: Open University Press.
4. Barrett, R. 2000. Market Arguments and Autonomy. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 34: 327-334.
5. Bhattacharyya, K. 2005. Hansard column 279 November 3
6. Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
7. Brookman, J. 1992. Same Song but with a Different Tune. Times Higher Education Supplement, October 2
8. Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., Very, P. and Veiga, J.F. 1997. Modelling the Origins of Nationally Bound Administrative Heritages: A Historical Institutional Analysis of French and British firms. Organization Science, 6: 681-96.
9. Caswill, C. and Wensley, R. 2007. Doors and Boundaries: A Recent History of the Relationship between Research and Practice in UK Organizational and Management Research. Business History, 3: 293-320
10. Chiles, T.H., Meyer, A.D. and Hench, T.J. 2004. Organizational Emergence: The Origin and Transformation of Branson, Missouri's Musical Theaters. Organization Science, 5: 499-519.
11. Colombo, M., Mustar, P. and Wright, M. 2010. Dynamics of Science-based Entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1: 1-15.
12. Cook, M. and Healey, N. 2001. Supply Side Policies: Studies in Economics and Business, Oxford: Heinemann.
13. Cosh, A.D. and Hughes, A. 2010. Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width: University-Industry Links and Government Financial Support for Innovation in Small High-technology Businesses in the UK and the USA. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1: 66-91.
14. Dearing, R. 1997. Higher Education in the Learning Society, London: DfEE.
15. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). 1999. Learning to Succeed: A New Framework for Post-16 Learning, London: HMSO. Cmnd. 4392
16. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2003. The Future of Higher Education, London: HMSO. Cmnd. 5735
17. Department of Education and Science (DES). 1987. Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, London: HMSO. White Paper Cmnd. 114
18. Department of Education and Science (DES). 1991. Higher Education: A New Framework, London: HMSO. White Paper Cmnd. 1541
19. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 4: 488-511.
20. Eisenhardt, K. and Galunic, C. 2000. Co-evolving: At last, a Way to Make Synergies Work. Harvard Business Review, 1: 91-101.
21. Glaser, B.G. and Straus, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory, New York: Aldine.
22. HMSO. 1918. Report of the Machinery of Government Committee under the Chairmanship of Viscount Haldane of Cloan, London: HMSO. Cmnd. 9230
23. HMSO. 1971. A Framework for Government Research and Development, London: HMSO. Cmnd. 4814
24. HMSO. 1993. Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, London: HMSO. Cmnd. 2250
25. Holmes, M. 1985. The First Thatcher Government, 1979-1983: Contemporary Conservatism and Economic Change, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
26. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Research. 2006. Council Support for Knowledge Transfer: Government Response to the Committee's Third Report of Session 2005-06. Fifth Special Report of the Session 2005-06, London: HMSO.
27. Kiesser, A. 1994. Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses-and How This Should be Performed. Organization Science, 4: 608-620.
28. Kirby, D. 2006. 'Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice'. The. Journal of Technology Transfer, 5: 599-603.
29. Khurana, R. 2007. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, London: HMSO.
31. Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 4: 691-710.
32. Lewin, A.Y. and Volberda, H.W. 1999. Prolegomena on Co-evolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 5: 519-534.
33. Levinthal, D.A. 1997. Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes. Management Science, 7: 934-950.
34. Locke, R. 2008. Comparing the German and American Systems. Business History Review, 2: 336-343.
35. Lockett, A. and Wright, M. 2005. Resources, Capabilities, Risk Capital and the Creation of University Spin-Out Companies. Research Policy, 7: 1043-1057.
36. March, J. 1994. "The Evolution of Evolution". In The Evolutionary Dynamics of Organisations, Edited by: Singh, J. and Baum, J. 39-49. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Martin, B. and Irvine, J. 1992. Government Spending: Trends in Government Spending on Academic and Related Research: An International Comparison. Science and Public Policy, 5: 311-19.
38. McKelvey, B. 1997. Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organization Science, 4: 352-380.
39. Millar, C., Choi, C-J. and Cheng, P. 2009. Co-evolution: Law and Institutions in International Ethics Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 4: 455-462.
40. Mowery, D. 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41. Murmann, J. 2003. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Co-evolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Mustar, P. and Wright, M. 2010. Convergence or Path Dependency in Policies to Foster the Creation of University Spin-off Firms? A Comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1: 42-65.
43. Nerkar, A. and Shane, S. 2003. When do Start-ups that Exploit Patented Academic Knowledge Survive?. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 9: 1391-410.
44. Newfield, C. 2003. Ivy and Industry: Business and the Making of the American University, 1880-1980, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45. Newman, J.H.C. 1852. The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, London: Longmans, Green and Co.
46. Newman, J.H.C. 1915. On the Scope and Nature of University Education, London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
47. Paradeise, C., Reale, E. and Bleiklie, I. 2009. University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Netherlands: Springer.
48. Porter, M.E. and Ketels, C.H.M. 2003. UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage, London: DTI.
49. Pullan, B. and Abendstern, M. 2000. A History of the University of Manchester 1951-73, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
50. REF. 2011. Decisions on Assessing Research Impact, Bristol: REF.
51. Russell Group Papers. 2010. The Economic Impact of Research Conducted in Russell Group Universities, London: Russell Group Papers.
52. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
53. Smith, A. 1999. The Wealth of Nations: Books IV-V, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
54. SPRU. 2002. Measuring Third Stream Activities: A Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities, Sussex: SPRU.
55. Stinchombe, A.L. 1965. "Organizations and Social Structure". In Handbook of Organizations, Edited by: March, J.G. 142-193. Chicago: Rand McNally.
56. Thatcher, M.H. 1995. The Path to Power, London: HarperCollins.
57. Trow, M. 1992. Thoughts on the White Paper of 1991. Higher Education Quarterly, 3: 213-226.
58. Wedgewood, M. 2006. "Mainstreaming the Third Stream". In Beyond Mass Education: Building on Experience, Edited by: McNay, I. 134-157. Milton Keynes,UK: Open University Press.
59. Williams, G. 1995. "The Marketization of HE: Reforms and Potential Reforms in HE Finance". In Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform, Edited by: Dill, D. and Sporn, B. 160-170. Oxford: IAU Press/Elsevier.
60. Williams, G. 1996. Paying for Education beyond Eighteen: An Examination of Issues and Options, London: Council for Industry and Higher Education.
61. Wilson, J. 1992. The Manchester Experiment: A History of Manchester Business School 1965-1990, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
62. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A. and Knockaert, M. 2008. Mid-range Universities' Linkages with Industry: Knowledge Types and the Role of Intermediaries. Research Policy, 8: 1205-1223.
63. Yates, J. 1993. Co-evolution of Information Processing Technology and Use: Interaction between the Life Insurance and Tabulating Industries. Business History Review, 1: 1-51.
64. Young, R. 1992. "The Idea of a Chrestomathic University". In Logomachia: The Conflict of the Faculties, Edited by: Rand, R. 97-126. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.