Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation pp 111–134Cite as

Cooperative Research Centers and Faculty Satisfaction: Multi-level Predictive Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1045 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter contribution to the edited volume acknowledges that there is little empirical research focused on the benefits and risks that academic faculty may expose themselves to while participating in these partnership arrangements. Beth M. Coberly and Denis O. Gray address three questions What outcomes do faculty experience from their participation in a cooperative research center (CRC)? To what extent is faculty satisfaction with their involvement in CRCs explained by variables at different levels of analysis? The use of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data from 275 faculty involved in federally-funded CRCs. Their descriptive findings suggest participating faculty receive a mix of tangible and intangible benefits and few report negative consequences. Predictive analyses indicated faculty satisfaction is explained by variables operating at the organizational (university research funding), center (primary discipline), and individual level (faculty benefits and symmetry with industry). Qualitative analysis of respondent concerns highlighted some promising new predictors. Implications for future research and policy are discussed. For a complementary examination of faculty benefits and challenges when participating in centers, see the chapter contribution by Garrett-Jones and colleagues on role conflict amongst academic faculty working in Australian CRCs.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information on IUCRCs, please refer to the program website (http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/iucrc/) or Managing the IUCRC: A Guide for Directors and Other Stakeholders (Gray and Walters 1998).

  2. 2.

    In order to assess the impact of including non-IUCRCs in our sample, our analyses were re-run excluding faculty from these centers. The results did not change.

  3. 3.

    Predictive analyses were run with rank and tenure status coded as continuous and categorical predictors. Treating them as categorical predictors did not change our findings.

  4. 4.

    Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale with a score of one meaning a very negative impact, a score of 3 meaning no impact, and a score of 5 meaning a very positive impact. A factor loading of 0.40 was used as the inclusion criterion for a factor.

  5. 5.

    While this finding might seem counter-intuitive some faculty have told us that they find industry’s influence less onerous than the imperative to publish in the most disciplinary journals and that requirements for regular reports by industry helps faculty publish sooner.

References

  • Aldrich H (1971) Organization boundaries and interorganizational conflict. Hum Relat 24(4):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen DN, Norling F (1990) Exploring perceived threats in faculty commercialization of research. In: Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Brett A (eds) University spinout corporations. Rowan and Littlefield, Maryland, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson R (2007) Deep competitiveness. Issues Sci Technol 23:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson R, Wial H (2008) Boosting productivity, innovation, and growth through a National Innovation Foundation. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Ministry of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (MIISR) (2009) Powering ideas: an innovation agenda for the 21st century. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Baba M (1988) Innovation in university-industry linkages: university organization and environmental change. Hum Organ 47:260–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens TR, Gray DO (2000) Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes. Res Policy 30:179–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendis R, Byler E (2009) Creating a national innovation framework. Innovation America, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis K, Stoto MA, Wise D (1986) University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science 232:1361–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS (1996) Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med 335:1734–1739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. J Am Med Assoc 277:1224–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman C, Bozeman B (2007) Role strain in university research centers. J High Educ 78:430–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman C, Ponomariov B (2007) Reward systems and NSF University Research Centers: the impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially-relevant research. J High Educ 78(1):51–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Foundation (2009) Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/. Retrieved 15 Aug 2009

  • Coburn C (ed) (1995) Partnerships: a compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs. Battelle, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley E, Gaughan M (2005) Scientists participation in university research centers: what are the gender differences. J Technol Transf 30:371–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35:703–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2007) Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res Policy 36:1620–1634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euro/Activ.com (2009) Investing in innovation ‘key to economic recovery’, EU News, Policy Positions & EU Actors Online, http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/investing-innovation. Accessed 22 Sept 2009

  • Feller I (1997) Technology transfer from universities. In: Smart J (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol XII. Agathon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times (2009) White House urges “open innovation”. Financial Times Science Blog, http://blogs.ft.com/scienceblog/2009/08/12/white-house-urges-open-innovation/. Accessed 22 Sept 2009

  • Garrett-Jones S, Turpin T (2007) The triple helix and institutional change: reward, risk and response in Australian Cooperative Research Centres. In: Triple helix VI: sixth international conference on university, industry and government linkages—emerging models for the entrepreneurial university. Research Publishing Services, National University of Singapore, Portugal

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett-Jones et al. (2010) Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. J Technol Trans, Special Issue: Cooperative Research Centers 35:527–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Monitor (2009) European innovation policy sees successes but also challenges. Public Sector News and Information, Government Monitor. http://thegovmonitor.com/world/europe/european-innovation/. Accessed 22 Sept 2009

  • GovTrack.us (2008) S.3078: National innovation and job creation act of 2008. Congressional Research Service Summary. http://www.govtrack.us/­congress/bills/110/s3078. Retrieved 5 Mar 2012

  • Gray DO (2000) Government-sponsored industry-university cooperative research: an analysis of cooperative research center evaluation approaches. Res Eval 8:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray DO (2008) Making team science better: applying improvement-oriented evaluation principles to the evaluation of cooperative research centers. New Dir Eval 118:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray DO, Walters SG (eds) (1998) Managing the industry-university cooperative research center: a guide for directors and other stakeholders. Battelle, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray DO, Johnson E, Gidley T (1987) Industry-university projects and centers: an empirical comparison of two federally funded models of cooperative science. Eval Rev 10:776–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny M (1987) The ethical dilemmas of university–industry collaborations. J Bus Ethics 6:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki RB, McKee-Ryan FM, Schriesheim CA, Carson KP (2002) Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: a review and meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 87:14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry R, Traore N, Godin B (1996) An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. High Educ 32:283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YS (1996) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 25:843–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YS (2000) The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J Technol Transf 25:111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin M, Bozeman B (2006) Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centers: a “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. J Technol Transf 31:269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-A, Borras S (2006) Science, technology and innovation policy. In: Fagerberg J, Mowrey D, Nelson R (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • NSB (2006) Science and engineering indicators—2006. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahm D (1994) Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer. Policy Stud J 22:267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI (1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q 15(2):150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessner D (2000) Outcomes and impacts of the State/Industry University Cooperative Research Centers Program. SRI International (Program report NSF 01-110), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector P (1997) Job satisfaction: application, assessment, cause and consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • SRI (1997) The impact on industry of interaction with Engineering Research Centers. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP (2008) The science of team science: an overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med 35:S77–S93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strickland DE, Kannankutty N, Morgan RP (1996) Forging links between engineering education and industry: the research connection. In: Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn J (2005) University Inc. New America Books, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was completed with support from the National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program (EEC-0631414) and its Science and Technology Centers Program (CHE-9876674). The authors appreciate the help of the faculty respondents who cooperated in this study and the feedback provided during the editorial process. We would also like to thank Dr. Drew Rivers and anonymous reviewers for their constructive editorial comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, 2801 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-2801, USA

    Beth M. Coberly

  2. Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 640 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7650, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7650, USA

    Denis O. Gray

Authors
  1. Beth M. Coberly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis O. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth M. Coberly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 1810 S. College Road, Columbus, 43210, USA

    Craig Boardman

  2. Campus Box 7650, Raleigh, 27695, USA

    Denis O. Gray

  3. Campus Box 7650, Raleigh, 27695, USA

    Drew Rivers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coberly, B.M., Gray, D.O. (2013). Cooperative Research Centers and Faculty Satisfaction: Multi-level Predictive Analysis. In: Boardman, C., Gray, D., Rivers, D. (eds) Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4388-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation