![]() |
||||||||||||||||||
|
NIST GCR
02-829
|
The U.S. research
and development enterprise finds itself in a wrenching period
of change with the end of the Cold War, the globalization
of the world economy and the drive to eliminate the federal
deficit.
The U.S. R&D establishment has now entered
a pivotal phase of transitionone that will determine
our nations long-term capacity to make and exploit
discoveries and innovations in critical areas, while providing
world-class institutions, facilities, and education in science,
mathematics, and engineering. R&D partnerships hold the key to meeting the challenge of transition that our nation now faces. Over the next several years, participants in the U.S. R&D enterprise will have to continue experimenting with different types of partnerships to respond to the economic constraints, competitive pressures, and technological demands that are forcing adjustments across the board [and in response] industry is increasingly relying on partnerships with universities . |
This view by the Council
on Competitiveness (1996, pp. 34) is not surprising. There are
indications that industry-university research relationships have strengthened
over the past few decades. For example, university participation in formal
research joint ventures has increased steadily since the mid-1980s (Link,
1996), the number of industry-university R&D centers has increased
by more than 60 percent during the 1980s (Cohen et al., 1997), and a
recent survey of U.S. science faculty revealed that many desire even
more partnership relationships with industry (Morgan, 1998). Mowery and
Teece (1996, p. 111) contend that such growth in strategic alliances
in R&D is indicative of a broad restructuring of the U.S. national
R&D system.
It is, however, surprising
that little is known about the types of roles that universities play
in research partnerships or about the economic consequences associated
with those roles. Our investigation is a first effort to provide some
empirical information about these issues.
What research there is
on the topic of universities as research partners falls broadly into
either examinations of industry motivations or of university motivations
for engaging in an industry-university research relationship. The existing
research has not investigated the economic effects associated with university
participation as thoroughly, especially at the project level.
The literature has identified
two broad industry motivations for engaging in an industry-university
research relationship. The first is access to complementary research
activity and research results.(1) Cohen
et al. (1997) provide a selective review of this literature, emphasizing
the studies that have documented that university research enhances firms sales,
R&D productivity, and patenting activity. (2) As
Rosenberg and Nelson (1994, p. 340) note: What university research
most often does today is to stimulate and enhance the power of R&D
done in industry, as contrasted with providing a substitute for it. Pavitt
(1998) is more specific and concludes that academic research augments
the capacity of businesses to solve complex problems. The second industry
motivation is access to key university personnel.(3)
University motivations for partnering with industry seem to be financially based. Administration-based financial pressures are growing for faculty to engage in applied commercial research with industry.(4) Zeckhauser (1996, p. 12746), for example, is subtle when he refers to the supposed importance of industry-supported research to universities as he describes how such relationships might develop: Information gifts [to industry] may be a part of [a universitys] commercial courtship ritual. Along those same lines, Cohen et al. (1997, p. 177) contend that: (5) University administrators appear to be interested chiefly in the revenue generated by relationships with industry. They are also of the opinion that faculty, who are fundamental to making such relationships work: (6) desire support, per se, because it contributes to their personal incomes [and] eminence primarily through foundation research that provides the building blocks for other research and therefore tends to be widely cited.
On the other hand, several
drawbacks to university involvement with industry have been identified,
such as the diversion of faculty time and effort from teaching, the conflict
between industrial trace secrecy and traditional academic openness, and
the distorting effect of industry funding on the university budget allocation
process (in particular, the tension induced when the distribution of
resources is vastly unequal across departments and schools).
The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows. In the second section we describe the sample of research partnerships studied. This sample comes from the population of research projects funded by the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) between 1991 and 1997. Our quantitative inquiry into the role of universities in research partnerships, based on survey data, is presented in the third section. We ask about the roles and effects of universities in research partnerships, and we provide descriptive information to answer each based on an analysis of university involvement in ATP-funded projects. Finally, in the last section we offer concluding observations in an effort to set the stage for future research in this area.
____________________
1. See
Blumenthal et al. (1986), Jaffe (1989), Adams (1990), Berman (1990),
Feller (1990), Mansfield (1991, 1992), Van de Ven (1993), Bonaccorsi
and Piccaluga (1994), Klevorick et al. (1994), Zucker, Darby, and Armstrong
(1994), Henderson, Jaffe, and Trajtenberg (1995), Mansfield and Lee (1996),
Zeckhauser (1996), Campbell (1997), Cohen et al. (1997), and Baldwin
and Link (1998).
2. Cockburn
and Henderson (1997) show that it was important for innovative pharmaceutical
firms to maintain ties to universities. Perhaps research ties with universities
increase the absorptive capacity, in the Cohen and Leventhal
(1990) sense, of the innovative firms.
3. See
Leyden and Link (1992) and Burnham (1997). Link (1995) documents that
one reason for the growth of Research Triangle Park (North Carolina)
was the desire of industrial research firms to locate near the triangle
universities (University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North Carolina
State University in Raleigh, and Duke University in Durham).
4. See
Berman (1990), Feller (1990), Henderson et al. (1995), and Siegel, Waldman,
and Link (1999).
5. Siegel
et al. (1999) document that university administrators consider licensing
and royalty revenues from industry as an important output from university
technology transfer offices.
6. As
an aside, while this argument is prevalent, the fact is that federal
support to universities has increased over the past decade in real terms,
from $10.6 billion dollars in 1990 to $14.1 billion dollars in 1999 (National
Science Foundation/SRS, 1997).
Return to Contents or go to next section.
Date created: October 18,
2002
Last updated:
August 2, 2005
![]() |
ATP website comments: webmaster-atp@nist.gov / Technical ATP inquiries: InfoCoord.ATP@nist.gov. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department |
![]() |