A Description of University-Industry R&D Collaboration in the United States

Part of the Library of Public Policy and Public Administration book series (LPPP, volume 1)


Finding ways to channel knowledge, know-how, and technology from universities to industry for the benefit of the nation became an important public policy issue for the U.S. beginning in the late 1970s, the beginning of the era of global competition. Concern over declining rates of economic growth and reduced competitiveness of U.S. industry resulted in a policy approach that emphasized improving the linkages between U.S. firms and research universities. The policy goal was to improve the condition of firms, especially in innovation-intense industries, by using university research results and personnel to bring to the market new or improved products, processes, and services. Reacting to financial pressures, universities were receptive to the incentives included in the legislation and adopted a mission of research partnership with industry. Responding first to their declining competitiveness and later to the organizational stress created by corporate restructuring, the private sector also engaged in concerted efforts to link to universities.


Technology Transfer Small Business Innovation Research Business Incubator Advance Technology Program Semiconductor Research Corporation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Technology Pre-Eminence Act of 1991, PL102– 245, enacted Jan 29, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. AUTM. AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 1996. Norwalk, CT: Association of University Technology Managers, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, PL 96– 517, enacted December 12, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. Bean, Alden S., M. Jean Russo and Roger L. Whiteley. “Benchmarking Your R&D: Results from IRI/CIMS Annual R&D Survey for FY’96,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 41, No.1, January 1998, 21– 30.Google Scholar
  5. Bowie, Norman. University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment. Maryland and London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. Bozeman, Barry, Michael Crow, and Albert N. Link. Strategic Management of Industrial R&D. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, Wesley, Richard Florida, and W. Richard Goe. University-Industry Research Centers in the United States. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. Cooke, Ian and Paul Mayes. Introduction to Innovation and Technology Transfer. Boston and London: Artech House, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Congressional Budget Office. J932– 18. “Using Federal R&D to Promote Commercial Innovation.” 1988.Google Scholar
  10. Dodgson, Mark and Roy Rothwell. “Technology Strategies in Small and Medium-Sized Firms.” Edited by Mark Dodgson. Technology Strategy and the Firm: Management and Public Policy. London: Longman, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, PL 99– 502, enacted October 20, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. Feller, Irwin. “What Agricultural Extension Has to Offer as a Model for Manufacturing Modernization,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 12, 1993, 574– 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Florida, Richard and Martin Kenney. The Breakthrough Illusion: Corporate America’s Failure to Move from Innovation to Mass Production. New York: Basic Books, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. Fusfeld, Herbert. “Corporate Restructuring-What Impact on U.S. Industrial Research?” Research Management. Vol. 30, No. 4, 1987, 10– 17.Google Scholar
  15. Gannes, Stuart. “The Good News About U.S. R&D,” Fortune. Vol. 117, No. 3, 1988, 48– 56.Google Scholar
  16. Geiger, Roger. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities 1900– 1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. Glassie, Jefferson C. “Heading Off Antitrust With Smart Research,” Association Management. No. 39, No. 4, 1987,61– 63.Google Scholar
  18. Hadwiger, Don F. The Politics of Agricultural Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. Jankowski, John E. “R&D: Foundation for Innovation,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 41, No. 2, March 1998, 14– 20.Google Scholar
  20. Knoblauch, H., Law, E., and Meyer, W. State Agricultural Experiment Stations: A History of Research Policy and Procedure, Cooperative State Experiment Station Service. USDA, 1962.Google Scholar
  21. Krieger, James H. “Cooperation Key to U.S. Technology Remaining Competitive,” Chemical Engineering News. Vol. 65, No. 17, 1987, 24– 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lesko, John, Phillip Nicolai, and Michael Steve. Technology Exchange in the Information Age: A Guide to Successful R&D Partnerships. Columbus: Battel le Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. Link, Albert N. and Gregory Tassey. Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry, University, Government Relationship. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mansfield, Edwin. “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation,” Research Policy. Vol. 20, 1991, 1– 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matkin, Gary W. Technology Transfer and The University. New York, Oxford, Singapore, and Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. Murray, Thomas J. “R&D Tax Shelters are Catching On,” Dun’s Business Month. Vol. 118, No. 6, 1981, 86–87.Google Scholar
  27. National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, PL 98– 462, enacted October 11, 1984.Google Scholar
  28. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, PL 104– 113, enacted February 1996.Google Scholar
  29. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, PL 100– 418, enacted August 23, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. Prestowitz, Clyde V. Trading Places: How We Are Giving Our Future to Japan and How to Reclaim It. New York: Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. Rahm, Dianne. “Academic Perceptions of University-Firm Technology Transfer,” Policy Studies Journal. Summer 1994, 267– 278.Google Scholar
  32. Rahm, Dianne. “Business Expectations and University Interactions: A Suggested Typology from a Survey of U.S. Firms,” Industry and Higher Education. Vol. 10, No. 4, August 1996, 207– 218.Google Scholar
  33. Rahm, Dianne and Thomas Luce, Jr. “Issues in the Design of State Science and Technology-Based Economic Development Programs: The Case of Pennsylvania’s Ben Franklin Partnership,” Economic Development Quarterly. Vol. 6, No. 1, February 1992, 41– 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rea, Donald G., Harvey Brooks, Robert M. Burger, and Richard LaScala. “The Semiconductor Industry: Model for Industry/University/Government Cooperation,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 40, No. 4, July 1997, 46– 54.Google Scholar
  35. Reams, Bernard D., Jr. University-Industry Research Partnerships: The Major Legal Issues in Research and Development Agreements. Westport: Quorum Books, 1986.Google Scholar
  36. Rosssner, David, Catherine P. Ailes, Irwin Feller, and Linda Parker. “How Industry Benefits from NSF’s Engineering Research Centers,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 41, No. 5, September 1998, 40– 44.Google Scholar
  37. Schultze, Charles L. Memos to the President: A Guide Through Macroeconomics for the Busy Policymaker. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1992.Google Scholar
  38. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, PL 96– 480, enacted October 21, 1980.Google Scholar
  39. Technology Competitiveness Act. See House Report 100– 266 (August 4, 1987) and Senate Report 100– 80 (June 22, 1987) and Title V, Subtitle B of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, PL 100– 418, enacted August 23, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. Trademark Clarification Act of 1984, PL 98– 620, enacted November 8, 1984.Google Scholar
  41. Whiteley, Roger L., Alden S. Bean, and M. Jean Russo. “Meet Your Competition: Results from IRI/CIMS Annual R&D Survey for FY’95,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1997, 16– 23.Google Scholar
  42. Zwart, Sara G. “The New Antitrust: An Aerial View of Joint Ventures and Mergers,” Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 7, Spring 1987, 68– 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Economic and Social ResearchLondonUK
  3. 3.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations