The Pennsylvania State University received funding from the National Science Foundation to develop a model of university–industry engagement that would leverage university resources to address the challenges facing Pennsylvania in its transition to the new economy that is defined by innovation, knowledge, and continuous learning. Influenced by two reports about Pennsylvania by the Brookings Institution in the early 2000s, the resulting university–industry model contains three components. First, it leverages university research to support industrial competitiveness in the region. This includes both technology transfer and helping firms to develop greater capacity for competitiveness in the new economy. Second, it leverages university research to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. Finally, it leverages the land grant university’s education mission to develop and retain a new economy workforce. Thus, the university goes beyond educating its youth; it also creates linkages between the educated workforce and the needs of companies.
AcworthE. (2008). University-industry engagement: The formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy, 37, 1241-1254.
2.
AgarwalR.AudretschD.SarkarM. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship, 1, 263-286.
3.
AgrawalA. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 285-302.
4.
AlguezauiS.FilieriR. (2010). Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: Sparse versus dense network. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 891-909.
5.
AntonelliC. (2013). Knowledge governance: Pecuniary knowledge externalities and total factor productivity growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 62-701.
6.
AudretschD. B.LeydenD. P.LinkA. N. (2013). Regional appropriation of university-based knowledge technology for economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 56-61.
7.
AudretschD. B.LinkA. N.Peña-LegazkueI. (2013). Academic entrepreneurship and regional economic development: Introduction to the special issue. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 3-5.
8.
AvilaM.KnoerrA.OrlandoN.CastilloC. (2010). Community organizing practices in academia: A model, and stories of partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(2), 37-63.
9.
Azagra-CaroJ. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalization of university-industry interaction. Technovation, 27, 704-715.
10.
Banal-EstañolA.Macho-StadlerI.Pérez-CastrilloD. (2013). Research output from university-industry collaborative projects. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 71-81.
11.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175-188.
12.
BirchD. (1979). The job generation process. Cambridge: MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change.
13.
BranscombL. (1997). From technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology, 13, 41-48.
14.
BreznitzS. M. (2013). Cluster sustainability: The Israeli life sciences industry. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 29-39.
15.
Brookings Institution. (2003). Back to prosperity: A competitive agenda for renewing Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
BrostromA. (2010). Working with distant researchers—Distance and content in university-industry interaction. Research Policy, 39, 1311-1320.
17.
BruneelJ.D’EsteP.SalterA. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39, 858-868.
18.
CharlesD. (2006). Universities as key knowledge infrastructures in regional innovation systems. Innovation, 19, 117-130.
19.
ChesbroughH. (2010, January/February). Open innovation: A key to achieving socioeconomic evolution: How smaller companies can benefit from open innovation. Economy, Culture & History, Japan Spotlight Bimonthly, 169. JAPECO, Japan Economic Foundation.
20.
CoburnC. (Ed.). (1995). Partnerships: A compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press.
21.
CohenW.Levinthal.D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
EricksonL. B.TrauthE. M. (2011). Narrowing the innovation gap: Factors influencing industry-university collaborations for innovation and knowledge transfer. Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, MI (Paper 29). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
24.
FellerI. (1990). Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19, 335-348.
25.
FloridaR. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 743-755.
26.
FloridaR. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community, 2, 3-19.
27.
FloridaR. (2007). The flight of the creative class. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
28.
FloridaR.CharlottaM.StolarickK. (2008). Inside the black box of regional development. Journal of Economic Geography, 8, 615-649.
29.
FoleyH. C. (2012). A new approach to intellectual property management and industrially funded research at Penn State. Research-Technology Management, 55(5), 1-6.
30.
FontanaR.GeunaA.MattM. (2004). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of university-industry collaboration. In CaloghirouY.ConstantelouA.VonortasN. S. (Eds.), Knowledge flows in European industry: Mechanisms and policy implications (pp. 183-209). London, England: Routledge.
31.
FranklinN. E. (2009). The need is now: University engagement in regional economic development. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(4), 51-73.
32.
González-PerníaJ. L.KuechleG.Peña-LegazkueI. (2013). An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 6-17.
33.
HallB. (2004). University-industry research partnerships in the United States. Paper presented at the Second International Conference of Sociotechnical Strategies, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
34.
HayterC. S. (2013). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: Factors of success among university spin-offs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 18-28.
35.
HoyF.VaughtB. (1980). The rural entrepreneur: A study in frustration. Journal of Small Business Management, 18, 19-25.
36.
Innovation and Information Consultants, Inc. (2006, February). An empirical approach to characterize rural small business growth and profitability (Small Business Research Summary, RS No. 271). Washington, DC: SBA Office of Advocacy.
37.
JacobsJ. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.
38.
JuntiwasarakijS.TrauthE. (2009, August). Exploring contemporary issues in knowledge transfer in IT outsourcing: The theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA (Paper 246). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
39.
KarunakaranA.HeJ.PuraoS.CameronB. (2009). Growth trajectories of SMEs and the sensemaking of IT risks—A comparative case study. In BeckerA.NiebuhrR. E. (Eds.), Cases on technology innovation: Entrepreneurial successes and pitfalls (pp. 156-172). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
40.
KarunakaranA.PuraoS.CameronB. (2009). Leveraging university research to assist SMEs in legacy industrial era regions—The case of I-99 corridor. In BharatiB.LeeI.ChaudhuryA. (Eds.), Global perspectives on small and medium enterprises and strategic information systems: International approaches (pp. 22-40). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
41.
KlingR.OlinS.PosterM. (Eds.). (1991). Postsuburban California: The transformation of Orange County since World War II. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
42.
LambrightW.TeichA. (1989). Science, technology, and state economic development. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 135-147.
43.
LaneJ. E.JohnstoneD. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and colleges as economic drivers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
LaursenK.MasciarelliF.PrencipeA. (2012). Regions matter: How localized social capital affects innovation and external knowledge acquisition. Organization Science, 23, 177-193.
45.
LaursenK.SalterA. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?Research Policy, 33, 1201-1215.
46.
LinkA.SiegelD.BozemanB. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641-655.
47.
LundvallB. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergR.SoeteL. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349-369). London, England: Pinter.
48.
LundvallB. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, England: Pinter.
49.
McDanielK. (2002, November). Venturing into rural America. In The Main Street Economist: Commentary on the rural economy (pp. 1-4). Kansas City: Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
50.
The Pennsylvania State University. (2010). Leveraging university research for industrial competitiveness and growth: Report of findings and recommendations. University Park: Author.
51.
The Pennsylvania State University. (2011). Penn State’s new approach to the management of intellectual property: Four simple rules of engagement with industry partners. University Park: Author.
52.
PerkmannM.NeelyA.WalshK. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41, 202-216.
53.
PetersS. J.JordanN. R.AdamekM.AlterT. R. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging campus and community: The practice of public scholarship in the state and land-grant university system. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.
54.
PondsR.van OortF.FrenkenK. (2010). Innovation, spillovers and university-industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10, 231-255.
55.
PorterM. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14, 15-34.
56.
PriggeG.TorracoR. (2006). University-industry partnerships: A study of how top American research universities establish and maintain successful partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11, 89-100.
57.
RahmD.LuceT. (1992). Issues in the design of state science and technology-based economic development programs: The case of Pennsylvania’s Ben Franklin Partnership. Economic Development Quarterly, 6, 41-51.
58.
RuttenR.BoekemaF. (2007). The learning region: Foundations, state of the art, future. In RuttenR.BoekemaF. (Eds.), The learning region: Foundations, state of the art, future (pp. 1-11). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
59.
SaxenianA. (1996). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
SchoeneckerT.MyersD.SchmidtP. (1989). Technology transfer at land-grant universities. Technology Transfer, 14, 28-32.
61.
ShapiraP.RoessnerJ. (1996). Evaluating industrial modernization: Introduction to the theme issue. Research Policy, 25, 181-183.
62.
ShermanH. D.LambW. B.AspegrenK. (2009). The care and feeding of high-growth businesses in rural areas: The role of universities. In VargaA. (Ed.), Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: Geography, entrepreneurship and development (pp. 350-366). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
63.
ShieldsJ. F. (2005). Does rural location matter? The significance of a rural setting for small businesses. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10, 49-63.
64.
TomesA.PhillipsM. (2003). Product development through university-SME collaboration: Lessons from reactive and proactive approaches. Local Economy, 18, 91-95.
65.
TrauthE. M.JuntiwasarakijS. (2010, August). Knowledge transfer challenges for universities and SMEs in the USA. Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima Peru (Paper 127). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
66.
TrauthE. M.QuesenberryJ. L.HuangH.McKnightS. (2008). Linking economic development and workforce diversity through action research. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference (pp. 58-65). New York, NY: ACM Press.
67.
TurnerR., (2003). The political economy of gubernatorial smokestack chasing: Bad policy and bad politics?State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3, 270-293.
68.
UrbanoD.GuerreroM. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 40-55.
69.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). Language, school enrollment, and educational attainment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
70.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Profile of selected social characteristics: Bedford County, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
71.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of selected social characteristics: Bedford County; Blair County, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
VeyJ. S. (2005). Higher education in Pennsylvania: A competitive asset for communities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
74.
VialeR.EtzkowitzH. (Eds). (2010). The capitalization of knowledge: A triple helix of university-industry-government. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
75.
YeoB. (2007). An investigation of contextual factors influencing the development of a sustainable knowledge economy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
76.
YeoB.TrauthE. M. (2009). The call for transformational governance in the knowledge economy. In WeerakkodyV.JanssenM.DwivediY. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on ICT-enabled transformational government: A global perspective (pp. 271-290). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
77.
YoutieJ.ShapiraP. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37, 1188-1204.
