In the current paper, we attempt to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of science, technology and innovation (STI) outputs and outcomes through the application of a Scientific and Technical Human Capital (STHC) evaluation framework. We do this by describing a study that focuses on a type of STI initiative that appears ripe with potential to affect STHC impacts—Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs). In doing so we summarize relevant theory related to the STHC framework and social capital formation more generally. We also define IUCRCs and highlight the program mechanisms that appear likely to impact the STHC outcomes. Finally, we narrow our focus to a relatively neglected research target of the STI evaluation—science and engineering (S&E) doctoral students. We compare social capital and other students’ outcomes by employing a rare quasi-experimental design with two training modalities: IUCRC and more traditional, non-center training. We show that our results demonstrate strong evidence for positive effects of IUCRC training on graduate S&E students’ outcomes. We also explain significant moderating effect of citizenship status on some of our results where international students, who account for 50% of this population, do not receive the same social capital outcomes as students with US citizenship or permanent resident status. In addition, we describe patterns in international students’ intentions to stay in the US and how they are affected by students’ training modality. Finally, we discuss the results and implications in the context of graduate training, STHC evaluation framework and STI and immigration policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bozeman et al. (2001) would probably take exception with this assertion since they offer a more inclusive definition of human capital that includes “tacit knowledge, craft knowledge and know-how.”
Johnson and Bozeman (2012) proposed the way to use the STHC model in helping minority students to succeed in academic medicine and science, but their approach was not empirical.
For detailed information on the number of IUCRC students visit https://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/NatReports.htm. For the detailed information on the number of ERC students see individual ERCs’ reports and publications (Huang 2009) or websites (ERC ASSIST: https://assist.ncsu.edu/; ERC FREEDM: https://www.freedm.ncsu.edu/).
The Kauffman report is based on online survey sent to current STEM graduate students at ten US universities with largest total number of enrolled international students.
The data are based on the Survey of Doctoral Recipients’ that asks recent graduates about their intentions to stay in the US and availability of a job or postdoctoral training upon graduation.
Following the recommendation of a priori power analyses of MANOVA with special effect and interactions, the objective was established to meet the minimum requirement of total 190 participants to achieve 90% power for a small size effect employing the traditional .05 significance criterion.
Based on a 2012–2013 IUCRC Structural report’s data, the total population of the site directors (N = 191) was contacted with the request to provide their university site’s current students. Almost half of site directors (49%, N = 94) responded and provided their students’ contact information. In addition, directors were asked to provide emails for students of different degree levels, but the study focused on Ph.D. students only.
All procedures were approved by the North Carolina State University’s IRB.
It was important to compare the IUCRC students to students trained traditionally in order for the findings to be meaningful and generalizable to the pros and cons of different training modalities that exist today. While we acknowledge that our sampling criteria did not eliminate students who might, for instance, have had industry experience in other than CRC form, we think we reached our main objective by excluding students who had collaborative experiences similar to CRC. There is a good chance that a subset of traditional students had one-on-one experience with industry, but our objective was to eliminate students who had consortium-type of experience where they work as part of a team of scientists as supposed to being part of a more limited in collaboration contractual relationship that are more typical in the US academia.
US academic professionals included: faculty from students’ departments (1), graduate students and post-docs from department (2), faculty from other disciplines (3) and graduate students/postdocs (4) from the same university, and faculty (5) and graduate student/post-docs (6) from other universities in the US. International academic professionals included two categories: (1) faculty and (2) graduate students/post-docs outside of the US. Industry professionals combined five categories: representatives of (1) large companies, of small companies (2), of the US Federal or local government (3), nonprofit organizations (4), and associations/foundations (5). All categories were checked for extreme outliers that were recoded into the closest values on the distribution. Note, the industry professional network consisted primarily of representatives of industry (71%) while other types of representatives had smaller proportion: non-profit (9%), governmental organizations (10%) and entrepreneurs (10%).
The network dimension of social capital includes the professional connections excluding students’ academic advisor(s).
Traditional students had the same question, but it was worded differently to reflect their non-involvement with IUCRCs: “In comparison with other students in your department, … .”
Three measures of size of each type of group (US academics, international academics and industry) were a continuous measure of total number of professionals in each group. Three measures of strength of connection to each type of group were the sum of two Likert-type measures with five response choices. The measure of norms and values was a scale (sum of eight Likert-type items with five response choices).
The assumption of equality of variance was violated because of the large difference in variance between US citizens (MI-UCRC = 3.01, SD = 4.13; Mtrad. = 5.32, SD = 9.88) and international students (MI-UCRC = 16.03, SD = 21.80; Mtrad. = 19.78, SD = 25.05) on the outcome. Since transformation of variables with non-normal distribution and large variance was not successful, the non-parametric one-way ANOVA was used to test whether immigration status predicts the number of the international academics. The three non-parametric ANOVAs tests were performed to see whether the number of international academics differs based on citizenship status. All three were significant thus, the tests rejected the null hypothesis, Mann–Whitney U Test p < .001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov p < .001, and Kruskal–Wallis p < .001.
The assumption of equal variance was violated. Three non-parametric tests of one-way ANOVA were performed for each of the significant independent variables. The tests rejected the null hypothesis for both variables, Mann–Whitney U Test p < .001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov p < .001, and Kruskal–Wallis p < .001 (immigration status) and Mann–Whitney U Test p < .001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov p < .001, and Kruskal–Wallis p < .001 (the type of training).
The assumption of equality of the variance was violated, so one-way non-parametric ANOVA was performed to see if the center and non-center students differ on this outcome. The tests results rejected the null hypothesis, Mann–Whitney U Test p < .001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov p < .001, and Kruskal–Wallis p < .001.
Assumption of equality of variance was violated and the non-parametric one-way ANOVA was performed with three significant tests. The three non-parametric tests indicated that the null hypothesis can be rejected, Mann–Whitney U Test p < .001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov p < .001, and Kruskal–Wallis p < .001.
Examples are NSF’s Partnership for International Research and Education (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505038) and NASA’s Intern and Fellow Opportunities for International Students (https://intern.nasa.gov/non-us-opportunities/index.html).
13% of variance in size of the international academic network; 8% of variance in strength international academic network; 8% in variance in strength of the industry network variable; 6% of variance in the norms and values; 7% variance in satisfaction; 12% of variance in students’ preparedness.
Agarwal, S., Chomsisengphet, S., & Liu, C. (2001). Consumer bankruptcy and default: The role of individual social capital. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 632–650.
Allen, T. J., & Katz, R. (1992). Age, education and the technical ladder. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(3), 237–245.
Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 3–17.
Arvanitis, S. (2012). Micro-econometric approaches to the evaluation of technology-oriented public programmes: A non-technical review of the state of the art. Chapter 3. In A. N. Link & N. S. Vonortas (Eds.), Handbook on the theory and practice of program evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.
Bertuzzi, S., & Jamaleddine, Z. (2016). Capturing the value of biomedical research. Cell, 165(1), 9–12.
Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900–913.
Boardman, C., & Gray, D. (2010). The new science and engineering management: Cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 445–459.
Bouabid, H. (2014). Science and technology metrics for research policy evaluation: Some insights from a Moroccan experience. Scientometrics, 101(1), 899–915.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital (1986). In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 81–93). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons (Chapter 8).
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 716–740.
Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34–49.
Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. (2001). Strategic management of government-sponsored R&D portfolios. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(3), 413–442.
Carley, K. M., & Kaufer, D. S. (1993). Semantic connectivity: An approach for analyzing symbols in semantic networks. Communication Theory, 3(3), 183–213.
Coberly, B. M., & Gray, D. O. (2010). Cooperative research centers and faculty satisfaction: A multi-level predictive analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 547–565.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. Organizations and communication technology, 143, 172.
Corolleur, C. D., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: The experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33(4), 631–642.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Daymon, C., & Durkin, K. (2013). The impact of marketisation on postgraduate career preparedness in a high skills economy. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 595–612. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.590896.
De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 41–56.
Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.
Eley, D. S. (2010). Postgraduates’ perceptions of preparedness for work as a doctor and making future career decisions: Support for rural, non-traditional medical schools. Education for Health, 23(2), 374.
Finn, M. G. (2010). Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from US universities, 2007 (No. 10-SEP-0168). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE).
Fornoni, M., Arribas, I., & Vila, J. V. (2010). Measurement of an individual entrepreneur’s social capital: A multidimensional model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(4), 495–507.
Gabbay, S. M., & Zuckerman, E. W. (1998). Social capital and opportunity in corporate R&D: The contingent effect of contact density on mobility expectations. Social Science Research, 27(2), 189–217.
Gaughan, M., & Ponomariov, B. (2008). Faculty publication productivity, collaboration, and grants velocity: Using curricula vitae to compare center-affiliated and unaffiliated scientists. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 103–110.
Gaughan, M., & Robin, S. (2004). National science training policy and early scientific careers in France and the United States. Research Policy, 33(4), 569–581.
Goldacre, M. J., Taylor, K., & Lambert, T. W. (2010). Views of junior doctors about whether their medical school prepared them well for work: Questionnaire surveys. BMC Medical Education, 10(1), 78. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-78.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1, 201–233.
Gray, D. O. (2008). Making team science better: Applying improvement-oriented evaluation principles to evaluation of cooperative research centers (p. 118). No: New Directions for Evaluation.
Gray, D. O., Boardman, C., & Rivers, D. (2013). The new science and engineering management: Cooperative research centers as intermediary organizations for government policies and industry strategies. In C. Boardman, D. O. Gray, & D. Rivers (Eds.), Cooperative research centers and technical innovation (pp. 3–33). New York: Springer.
Gray, D. O., Leonchuk, O., McGowen, L. C. & Michaelis, T. (2016). National Science Foundation industry/University Cooperative Research Centers: Analysis of 2014–2015 structural information. North Carolina State University.
Gray, D. O. & Rivers, D. (2008). Who will join and who will decline: An analysis of factors influencing a firm’s decisions to join cooperative research centers [abstract]. In Proceedings of Atlanta conference on science technology and innovation policy and the IEEE Electronic Library, Atlanta, GA.
Gray, D. O., & Steenhuis, H. (2003). Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance. Scientometrics, 58(2), 281–300.
Gray, D., Sundstrom, E., Tornatzky, L. G., & McGowen, L. (2011). When Triple Helix unravels: A multi-case analysis of failures in Industry–University Cooperative Research Centres. Industry and Higher Education, 25(5), 333–345.
Gray, D. O., & Walters, S. G. (1998). Managing the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center: A guide for directors and other stakeholders. Columbus, OH: Battalle.
Griliches, Z. (1958). Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovation. Journal of Political Economy, 66(5), 419–431.
Grootaert, C., & Bastelaer, T. (2001). Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Working paper, The World Bank Social Development Family Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, April, 2001.
Hall, B.H. (2011). Innovation and productivity (No. w17178). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Han, X., & Appelbaum, R. (2016). Stay or Go Home? International Stem Students in the United States are Up for Grabs after Graduation.
Huang, A. Q. (2009, July). Renewable energy system research and education at the NSF FREEDM systems center. In Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 2009. PES’09. IEEE (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Ingram, S., Friesen, M., & Ens, A. (2013). Professional integration of international engineering graduates in Canada: Exploring the role of a co-operative education program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 193–204.
Institute of International Education. (2016). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange.
Jankowski, J. E. (2012). Business use of intellectual property protection documented in NSF survey. NSF Info Brief, 12-307.
Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2012). Perspective: Adopting an asset bundle model to support and advance minority students’ careers in academic medicine and the scientific pipeline. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(11), 1488.
Kassim, S. S., McGowan, Y., McGee, H., & Whitford, D. L. (2016). Prepared to practice? Perception of career preparation and guidance of recent medical graduates at two campuses of a transnational medical school: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 16, 56. doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0584-6.
Kim, J. (2016). Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate students’ transnational occupational trajectories. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 30–50.
Kim, D., Bankart, C. A., & Isdell, L. (2011). International doctorates: Trends analysis on their decision to stay in US. Higher Education, 62(2), 141–161.
Kim, D., & Roh, J. Y. (2017). International doctoral graduates from China and South Korea: A trend analysis of the association between the selectivity of undergraduate and that of US doctoral institutions. Higher Education, 73(5), 615–635.
Lane, J., & Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results of science investments. Science, 331(6018), 678–680.
Largent, M., & Lane, J. (2012). STAR METRICS and the science of science policy. Review of Policy Research, 29(3), 431–438.
Leonchuk, O., & Gray, D. O. (2017). Literature review of students trained in cooperative research centers. Working paper.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.
Lin, N., Fu, Y. C., & Hsung, R. M. (2001). Measurement techniques for investigations of social capital. In N. Lin (Ed.), Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis. Chapter, 2, 15–55.
Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook on the theory and practice of program evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42, 1647–1656.
Mayoux, L. (2001). Tackling the down side: Social capital, women’s empowerment and micro-finance in Cameroon. Development and Change, 32(3), 435–464.
McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.
Morrow, G., Johnson, N., Burford, B., Rothwell, C., Spencer, J., Peile, E., et al. (2012). Preparedness for practice: The perceptions of medical graduates and clinical teams. Medical Teacher, 34(2), 123–135. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.643260.
Murray, F., Stern, S., Campbell, G., & MacCormack, A. (2012). Grand innovation prizes: A theoretical, normative, and empirical evaluation. Research Policy, 41(10), 1779–1792.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington VA (NSB 14-01): National Science Foundation.
Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community development practice. Community Development, 33(1), 33–52.
Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613–624.
Poortinga, W. (2012). Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health & Place, 18(2), 286–295.
Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, P., Groth, C., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, October 26, 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
Robinson, L. J., Schmid, A. A., & Siles, M. E. (2002). Is social capital really capital. Review of Social Economy, 60, 1–21.
Roh, J. Y. (2015). What predicts whether foreign doctorate recipients from US institutions stay in the United States: Foreign doctorate recipients in science and engineering fields from 2000 to 2010. Higher Education, 70(1), 105–126.
Rojas, Y., & Carlson, P. (2006). The stratification of social capital and its consequences for self-rated health in Taganrog, Russia. Social Science and Medicine, 62(11), 2732–2741.
Rose, R. (2000). How much does social capital add to individual health? A survey study of Russians. Social Science and Medicine, 51(9), 1421–1435.
Schneider, J. (2007). A multivariate study of graduate student satisfaction and other outcomes within cooperative research centers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Scott, C. S., Schaad, D. C., & Brock, D. M. (1993). Educational outcomes of the Industry/University Cooperative Research Program: A Follow-up assessment of graduate students. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Engineering Deans and Industry Leaders. Paris: UNESCO.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Solicitation 17-516. (2017). Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers (I-UCRC). National Science Foundation.
The National Academies. (2017). A new vision for center-based engineering research. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Turpin, T., Woolley, R., & Marceau, J. (2010). Scientists across the boundaries: National and global dimensions of scientific and technical human capital (STHC) and policy implications for Australia. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 19(1), 65–86.
Waters, J. L. (2006). Geographies of cultural capital: Education, international migration and family strategies between Hong Kong and Canada. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(2), 179–192.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank research observer, 15(2), 225–249.
About this article
Cite this article
Leonchuk, O., Gray, D.O. Scientific and technological (human) social capital formation and Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers: a quasi-experimental evaluation of graduate student outcomes. J Technol Transf 44, 1638–1664 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9613-9
- Social capital
- Science technology and innovation
- Cooperative research centers
- Industry–university cooperation