Evaluation 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)


The emergence of the cooperative university-industry R&D paradigm several decades ago, and the vigorous efforts of the federal government to encourage these R&D partnerships represented a substantial change in traditional U.S. R&D efforts. One of the primary goals of R&D policy over the past decades was to support domestic cooperation in the hope of increasing the international competitiveness of U.S. industry. The laws passed and other efforts undertaken on the national level vastly altered the environment of U.S. R&D.


Technology Transfer Industrial Partner License Activity Technology Transfer Activity Legal Feis 
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. Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM Licensing Survey, Fiscal Year 1995. Association of University Technology Managers, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM Licensing Survey, Fiscal Year 1996. Association of University Technology Managers, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Azaroff, Leonid V. “Industry-University Collaboration: How To Make It Work,” Research Management. Vol. 25, No. 3, May 1982.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, Robert. “Bringing Science into Industry from Universities,” Research Management. November-December, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, Tom L. “Ethical Issues in Funding and Monitoring University Research,” Business & Professional Ethics Journal. Vol. 11, No. 1, 1992,6–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bloedon, Robert V. and Deborah R. Stokes. “Making University-Industry Collaborative Research Succeed,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 37, No. 2, March/April 1994, 44–48.Google Scholar
  7. Bok, Derek. “Universities: Their Temptations and Tensions,” Journal of College and University Law. Vol. 18, No. 1, Summer 1991, 1–19.Google Scholar
  8. Bourke, Jaron and Robert Weissman. “Academics at Risk: The Temptations of Profit,” Academe. September/October 1990, 15–21.Google Scholar
  9. Bowie, Norman E. University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment. Maryland and London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. Buchbinder, Howard and Janice Newson. “The Service University and Market Forces,” Academe. July-August 1992, 13–15.Google Scholar
  11. Burnham, James. “Evaluating Industry/University Research Linkages,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 40, No. 1, February 1997, 52–55.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Wesley, Richard Florida, and W. Richard Goe. “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States.” Report from the Center for Economic Development, Carnegie Mellon University, July 1994.Google Scholar
  13. Colton, Robert. “Status Report on the NSF University-Industry Cooperative Research Centers,” Research Management. Vol. 28, No. 6, November/December 1985, 25–31.Google Scholar
  14. Colton, Robert. “University/Industry Cooperative Research Centers Are Proving Themselves,” Research Management. Vol. 30, No. 2, March/April 1987, 34–37.Google Scholar
  15. Crow, Michael M. and Mark Emmert. “Interorganizational Management of R&D: University-Industry Relations and Innovation.” Edited by Barry Bozeman, Michael Crow, and Albert Link. Strategic Management of Industrial R&D. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. Cukor, Peter. “How GTE Laboratories Evaluates Its University Collaborations,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 35, No. 2, March/April, 1992, 31–37.Google Scholar
  17. Dismukes, John P. and Ruzica A. Petkovic. “University-Based Virtual Alliances Could Spur Technological Innovation,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 40, No. 6, November/December 1997, 10–11.Google Scholar
  18. Fairweather, James S. “The University’s Role in Economic Development: Lessons for Academic Leaders,” SRA Journal. Winter 1990, 5–11.Google Scholar
  19. Fassin, Yves. “Academic Ethos Versus Business Ethics,” International Journal of Technology Management. Vol. 6, No. 5/6, 1991,533–546.Google Scholar
  20. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, PL 99–502, enacted October 20, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. Feller, Irwin. “Technology Transfer, Public Policy, and the Cooperative Extension Service-OMB Imbroglio,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 6, No. 3, 1987, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gluck, Michael E., David Blumenthal, and Michael A. Stoto. “University-Industry Relationships in the Life Science: Implications for Students and Post-Doctoral Fellows,” Research Policy. Vol. 16, No. 6, December 1987, 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamison, David K. “Technology Partnership for Economic Growth,” Chemtech. Vol. 26, No. 10, 1996, 6–7.Google Scholar
  24. Jankowski, John E. “R&D: Foundation for Innovation,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 41, No. 2, March 1998, 14–20.Google Scholar
  25. Kash, Don E. and Robert W. Rycrosft. “U.S. Federal Government R&D and Commercialization: You Can’t Get There From Here,” R&D Management. Vol. 25, No. 1, 1995, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killoren, Robert. “Institutional Conflict of Interest,” Research Management Review. Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1989, 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, Yong S. “Technology Transfer and the Research University: A Search for the Boundaries of University-Industry Collaboration,” Research Policy. Vol. 25, 1996, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacLachlan, Alexander. “Industrial Expectations and the Research Universities,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 37, No. 6, November/December 1994, 9–10.Google Scholar
  29. National Science Board. Science & Engineering Indicators-1998. NSB 98–1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Owen, Jean V. and John F. Entorf. “Where Factory Meets Faculty,” Manufacturing Engineering. Vol. 102, No. 2, February 1989, 48–71.Google Scholar
  31. Rahm, Dianne. “Academic Perceptions of University-Firm Technology Transfer,” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 1994, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle 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 1996a, 207–218.Google Scholar
  33. Rahm, Dianne. “Promoting Technology Transfer in the U.S. University: When it Works, When it Doesn’t.” Edited by John Kirkland. Barriers to International Technology Transfer. Dorrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996b.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, Edward B. and Peters, Donald H. “Commercial Innovation from University Faculty,” Research Management. Vol 25, No. 3, May 1982, 24–30.Google Scholar
  35. Roessner, 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/October 1998, 40–44.Google Scholar
  36. Smilor, Raymond W. and David V. Gibson. “Accelerating Technology Transfer in R&D Consortia,” Research Technology Management. January/February 1991, 44–49.Google Scholar
  37. Smilor, Raymond W. and David V. Gibson. “Technology Transfer in Multi-Organizational Environments: The Case of R&D Consortia,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Vol. 38, No. 1, February 1991, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smilor, Raymond W., Glenn B. Dietrich, and David V. Gibson. “The Entrepreneurial University: The Role of Higher Education in the United States in Technology Commercialization and Economic Development,” International Social Science Journal. Vol. 45, No. 1, February 1993, 1–11.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, Robert. “Industrial Research Institute’s R&D Trends Forecast for 1998,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 41, No. 1, January/February 1998, 16–20.Google 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