Research and Scholarship

Springer International Handbooks of Education

Volumn 18, Issue , 2007, Pages 309-328

  Harman, Grant ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

High Education Institution; High Education System; Industry Funding; Priority Setting; Research Commercialization

Indexed keywords

EID: 85179352273     PISSN: 21971951     EISSN: 2197196X     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_16     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. Association of University Technology Managers. (2003). AUTM licensing survey: FY 2001, full report. Chicago, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.
2. Australian Research Council. (2000). Research in the national interest: Commercializing university research in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
3. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. Science, 232, 1361–1366.
4. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.
6. Calvert, J. & Patel, P. (2002). University-industry research collaboration in the UK. Brighton, UK: SPRU, University of Sussex.
7. Chubin, D. E. & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
8. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9. Coaldrake, P. & Stedman, L. (1998). On the brink: Australia’s universities confronting their future. St Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
10. Dearing, R. (Chair). (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Leeds, UK: National Committee on Inquiry into Higher Education.
11. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2004). Review of closer collaboration between universities and major publicly funded agencies. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
12. Dickson, S. (1984). The new politics of science. New York: Basic Books.
13. Etzkowitz, H. & Peters, L. (1991). Profiting from knowledge: Organizational innovations and the evolution of academic norms. Minerva, 39, 133–166.
14. Geiger, R. (2003). Beyond technology transfer: New state policies for economic development for U.S. universities. Porto, Portugal: Paper presented at 16th CHER Annual Conference, 4–6 September.
15. Geiger, R. L. (1986). To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
18. Gittleman, M. (2002). The institutional origins of national innovation performance: Careers, organizations, and patents in biotechnology in the United States and France. New York: Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
19. Goldfarb, B. & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.
20. Hall, B. H. (2004). University-industry research partnerships in the United States. Japan: Paper presented at the Kansai Conference, February.
21. Harman, G. (1999). Science and technology academics and university-industry research links in Australian universities. Higher Education, 38(1), 83–103.
22. Harman, G. (2000). Academic work and values in Australian higher education, 1977–1997. In M. Tight (Ed.), Academic work and life: What it is to be an academic, and how this is changing (pp. 73–116). Amsterdam: JAI, an imprint of Elsevier Science.
23. Harman, G. (2002). Australian university-industry research links: Researcher involvement, outputs, personal benefits and “withholding” behavior. Prometheus, 20(2), 143–158.
24. Harman, G. (2003). A perspective on a decade of change. In The national report on higher education (pp. 1–41). Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
25. Harman, G. & Harman, K. (2004). Governments and universities as the main drivers of enhanced Australian university research commercialization capability. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 154–169.
26. Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.
27. Henrekson, M. & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the U.S. and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 207–231.
28. Howard, J. (2002). Backing Australia’s ability: Real results, real jobs. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
29. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30. Ministry of Education. (2001). The centers of research excellence fund. Auckland, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
31. Ministry of Education. (2002). Development of the performance-based research fund. Auckland, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
32. Motohashi, K. (2003). Japan’s patent system and business innovation: Reassessing pro-patent policies. Tokyo: Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University and RIETI.
33. OECD. (1991). Choosing priorities in science and technology. Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.
34. OECD. (1998). University research in transition (1998). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
35. OECD. (2002). Frascati manual. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
36. OECD. (2003a). Governance of public research: Towards better practices. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
37. OECD. (2003b). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard (2003). Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.
38. OECD. (2003c). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
39. Sizer, J. (2001). Research and the knowledge age. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(3), 227–242.
40. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
41. Stenberg, L. (2004). Government research and innovation policies in Japan. Ostersund, Sweden: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.
42. Tight, M. (Ed.). (2000). Academic work and life: What it is to be an academic, and how this is changing. Amsterdam: JAI, an imprint of Elsevier Science.
43. University Grants Committee. (2004). Areas of excellence. Hong Kong: University Grants Committee.
44. Yun, M. (2003). Regulatory regime governing management of intellectual property of Korean public research organizations: Focus on the biotechnology sector. In Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research. Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.