Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment
This paper estimates the effect of select university characteristics on the propensity of individual scientists to interact with private sector companies. The academic prestige of an institution has a direct negative effect on scientists’ interactions with the private sector, while the level of industrial R&D expenditures has a direct positive effect on such interactions. Institutional characteristics also moderate the effect of some individual-level variables such as tenure status, grant activity, involvement with students and disciplinary effects.
KeywordsUniversity-industry relations Technology transfer Hierarchical linear modeling Organizational context
JEL ClassificationsO31 O32
The research reported here was supported by grants from the NSF “Assessing R&D Projects’ Impacts on Scientific and Technical Human Capital Development” (SBR 98-18229, PI B. Bozeman), and “University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success” (REC-0447878, PI M. Gaughan). Special thanks to G. Yalcintas of SUNY, and W. Streitz and C. Burke of UC who kindly provided desegregated patent counts for each of the campuses within their respective university systems. Many thanks to P. Boardman and K. Johns for their comments on early drafts. Any opinions and mistakes in the paper are the author’s.
- Coupe, T. (2001). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the conference innovations and intellectual property: Economic and managerial perspectives, Brussels, November 22–23.Google Scholar
- Crow, M. M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Feller, I., & Roessner, D. (1995). What does industry expect from university partnerships. Issues In Science And Technology, 12(1), 80–84.Google Scholar
- Foltz, J., Kim, K., & Barham, B. (2001). A dynamic count data analysis of university Ag-biotech patents: Food marketing policy center Research report 56.Google Scholar
- Hal, R. (1991). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Link, A., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2006). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
- Lowry, R. (1999). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. Poughkeepsie, NY: Vassaar College.Google Scholar
- Ponomariov, B. L. (2006). Student centrality in university-industry interactions. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar