The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 139–157 | Cite as

The engaged university

Article

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.

Keywords

Universities Economic development Technology transfer 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O43 O51 

References

  1. Association of University Technology Managers. (2005). Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.autm.net/aboutTT/aboutTT_faqs.cfm#4.
  2. Atlas, S. (1996). Yale student’s killer convicted once again. New Haven: Yale Daily News.Google Scholar
  3. Auburn Technical Assistance Center. (2009). About ATAC from http://www.auburnworks.org/about.cfm.
  4. Ball, M. (1999). Is Yale safe? The Yale Herald.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenstyk, G. (1990b). Yale agrees to pay New Haven for some city services. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 36, A30.Google Scholar
  7. Borden, G. W., & Fletcher, R. R. (2002). Contribution of the Mohave Generating Station to local economies. University of Nevada, Reno: Reno.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Breznitz, S. M., & Anderson, W. (2006). Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 28(2), 249–264.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, W. (2000). Taking Care of Business. ASEE Prism Online.Google Scholar
  15. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H. (1995). The Triple Helix—university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 9–14.Google Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations. Pinter: London, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, M. P. (1994). The geography of innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, M. P. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: Areview of empirical studies. Routledge, 8, 5–25.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Felsenstein, D. (1996). The university in the metropolitan arena: Impacts and public policy implications. Urban Studies, 33(9), 1565–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forest City Enterprises Inc. (2008). History of University Park, from http://www.fceboston.com/portfolio_up_history.asp?node=1.
  23. Gannon, J. (2008). Top 50: Region has seen steady shift from manufacturing. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Post Gazette.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huron Consulting Group. (2008). Strategic economic development: A plan for the Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keeble, D. (2001). University and technology: Science and technology parks in the Cambridge region. Cambridge: Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2000). High-technology clusters, networking, and collective learning in Europe. England, Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  30. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Missouri State University. (2008). Jordan Valley Innovation Center, from http://jvic.missouristate.edu/.
  39. Moreau, R., & Forrant, R. (2008). The university effect: UMass Lowell could help revitalize city housing. The Lowell Sun. Massachusetts: Lowell.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. O’Mara, M. P. (2004). Cities of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramos, S. (2002) State: Wal-Mart tops Pa. list of largest private employers. The Daily Pennsylvanian.Google Scholar
  45. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodin, J. (2007). The university and urban revival. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  47. Russell, C. (1993). Academic freedom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Sainsbury, L. (1999). Biotechnology clusters, Ministry of Science.Google Scholar
  49. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Scott, P. (1977). What future for higher education. London: Fabian Tracts.Google Scholar
  51. Sedgwick, J. (1994). The death of Yale. GQ.Google Scholar
  52. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. State of Iowa Board of Regents. (2006). Annual economic development and technology transfer report.Google Scholar
  55. Taxoma Regional Consortium. (2009). Leveraging the Power of Partnerships. from http://www.trcteam.org/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC={88AB5185-8A53-4400-912A-54EDE8BA7015}.
  56. The ARCHE Report. (2006). Economic Impact.Google Scholar
  57. The University of Nevada, R. (2008). Center for Economic Development, from http://www.ag.unr.edu/uced/.
  58. 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
  59. Wicksteed, S. Q. (1985). The Cambridge phenomenon: The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Segal Quince Wicksteed: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  60. Wicksteed, S. Q. (2000). The Cambridge phenomenon revisited. Segal Quince Wicksteed: Histon, UK.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public PolicyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations