Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The engaged university

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Universities play a unique role in society, providing a community of experimentation and innovation. Even so, leaders around the world have had to push for university primacy to retain competitiveness in the global economy. This paper examines efforts taken by universities in the United States to evaluate their contribution to economic development. An emerging role for universities is one of active neighborhood involvement, in which they are engaged in projects with local communities. These projects include providing assistance to local firms and policy advice to state and local government, and getting involved in community outreach. In this role and in an unprecedented manner, universities are engaging on a wide range of topics with local communities, using these communities as labs to test new ideas and find better ways to achieve social and economic goals. This is precisely why it is important to consider the larger role of universities’ in economic and social development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Universities differ in terms of their resources, their funding sources, whether they are public or private institutions, what programs and research level they offer.

  2. In many cases, the tensions between universities and cities developed over the fact that universities are independent entities. Universities govern themselves; if they are a private institution they also do not rely on public funding, and even though the city must service the institution, universities as educational institutions do not pay property taxes.

  3. Faculties have been working with industry for a long time, but collaboration has mainly focused on research. This section discusses the changes toward applicability and commercialization.

  4. Some incubators and science park are owned or partially owned by the university. Others are private but still located in close proximity to the university.

  5. While providing fiscal funding and a location, the university holds only one-third of the seats on the XTNDC board. This way the university does not control the board and sees itself as another player in the community.

  6. The Center was created as a response to poor neighbourhood relations during the 1960–1970s’ redevelopment and campus expansion efforts.

References

  • Association of University Technology Managers. (2005). Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.autm.net/aboutTT/aboutTT_faqs.cfm#4.

  • Atlas, S. (1996). Yale student’s killer convicted once again. New Haven: Yale Daily News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auburn Technical Assistance Center. (2009). About ATAC from http://www.auburnworks.org/about.cfm.

  • Ball, M. (1999). Is Yale safe? The Yale Herald.

  • Blumenstyk, G. (1990a). After years of stormy relations with City and State, U. of Vermont moves to improve its image and pacify its many critics. The Chronicles of Higher Education, 36.

  • Blumenstyk, G. (1990b). Yale agrees to pay New Haven for some city services. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 36, A30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden, G. W., & Fletcher, R. R. (2002). Contribution of the Mohave Generating Station to local economies. University of Nevada, Reno: Reno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M. (2000). The geography of industrial districts: Why does the biotechnology industry in Massachusetts cluster in Cambridge? Regional Economic & Social Development. Lowell, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Master’s.

  • Breznitz, S. M. (2007). From ivory tower to industrial promotion: The development of the biotechnology cluster in New haven, Connecticut. Revue dEconomie Industrielle no 120 (4eme trimester): 115–134.

  • Breznitz, S. M., & Anderson, W. (2006). Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 28(2), 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M., O’Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CB Richard Ellis Consulting. (2008). A study of the economic impact and benefits of UC San Diego Fiscal Year 2006–07. CA: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. (2000). Taking Care of Business. ASEE Prism Online.

  • Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emory University. (2009). Impact on Georgia, from http://whsc.emory.edu/home/about/components-and-figures/impact-on-georgia.html.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1995). The Triple Helix—university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations. Pinter: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994). The geography of innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: Areview of empirical studies. Routledge, 8, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., Breznitz, S. M. (2009). The American Experience in University Technology Transfer. European universities Learn to Compete: From Social Institutions to Knowledge Business. M. McKelvey and M. Holmen, Edward Elgar.

  • Felsenstein, D. (1996). The university in the metropolitan arena: Impacts and public policy implications. Urban Studies, 33(9), 1565–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forest City Enterprises Inc. (2008). History of University Park, from http://www.fceboston.com/portfolio_up_history.asp?node=1.

  • Gannon, J. (2008). Top 50: Region has seen steady shift from manufacturing. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddarrd, J., & Chatterton, P. (1999). Regional development agencies and the knowledge economy: Harnessing the potential of universities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17, 685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huron Consulting Group. (2008). Strategic economic development: A plan for the Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D. (2001). University and technology: Science and technology parks in the Cambridge region. Cambridge: Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2000). High-technology clusters, networking, and collective learning in Europe. England, Ashgate: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Goe, R. W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professional entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. S., Eesley, D. T., Devaughn, M., & Rura-Polley, T. (2001). The magic beanstalk vision: Commercializing university inventions and research. Entrepreneurial Dynamic. Stanford: C. B. Schoonhoven and E. Romanelli, Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minshall, T., Druilhe, C., & Probert, D. (2004). The evolution of “Third Mission” activities at the university of Cambridge: Balancing strategic and operational considerations. 12th High Tech Small Firms Conference. The Netherlands: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Missouri State University. (2008). Jordan Valley Innovation Center, from http://jvic.missouristate.edu/.

  • Moreau, R., & Forrant, R. (2008). The university effect: UMass Lowell could help revitalize city housing. The Lowell Sun. Massachusetts: Lowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., Rosenberg, R. R. et al. (1999). The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology transfer. Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States.

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mara, M. P. (2004). Cities of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, S. (2002) State: Wal-Mart tops Pa. list of largest private employers. The Daily Pennsylvanian.

  • Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, J. (2007). The university and urban revival. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. (1993). Academic freedom. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, L. (1999). Biotechnology clusters, Ministry of Science.

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (1977). What future for higher education. London: Fabian Tracts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, J. (1994). The death of Yale. GQ.

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, D. S., & Phan, H. P. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property, 16. Amsterdam: D. G. Libecap, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • State of Iowa Board of Regents. (2006). Annual economic development and technology transfer report.

  • Taxoma Regional Consortium. (2009). Leveraging the Power of Partnerships. from http://www.trcteam.org/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC={88AB5185-8A53-4400-912A-54EDE8BA7015}.

  • The ARCHE Report. (2006). Economic Impact.

  • The Austin Chronicle. (2002). Best of Austin 2002, from http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Awards/BestOfAustin/?Year=2002&BOACategory=Politics%20%26%20Personalities&Poll=Readers.

  • The University of Nevada, R. (2008). Center for Economic Development, from http://www.ag.unr.edu/uced/.

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2000). Industry perspectives on licensing university technologies: Sources and problems. The Journal of the Association of university technology Managers, 12, 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksteed, S. Q. (1985). The Cambridge phenomenon: The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Segal Quince Wicksteed: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksteed, S. Q. (2000). The Cambridge phenomenon revisited. Segal Quince Wicksteed: Histon, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiewel, W., & Perry, D. (Eds.). (2008). Global universities and urban development: Case studies and analysis. Cities and Contemporary Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Peng, Y. (1998). Fundamentals or population dynamics and the geographic distribution of U.S. biotechnology enterprises, 1976–1989. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Shiri M. Breznitz

  2. Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Maryann P. Feldman

Authors
  1. Shiri M. Breznitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maryann P. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiri M. Breznitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breznitz, S.M., Feldman, M.P. The engaged university. J Technol Transf 37, 139–157 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation