AnanthM. S.2006. ‘Scaling up Higher Education’, Interview, The Hindu, 11 September 2006, New Delhi.
2.
AudretschD. B.ThurikA. R.2001. ‘What Is New About the New Economy: Sources of Growth in the Managed and Entrepreneurial Economies’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 267–315.
3.
BalaramP. 10 March2003. ‘Indian Institutes of Technology’, Editorial, Current Science, Vol. 84, No. 5.
4.
BasantR.ChandraP.2007. ‘Role of Educational and R & D Institutions in City Clusters, An Exploratory Study of Bangalore and Pune Regions’, World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1037–1055.
5.
BotelhoA. J. J.1991. ‘The Diffusion of ‘MIT Model': A First Approach’, paper presented at 2eme Alelier Emergence de Communaeles Scientifiques, Dans Les Pays En Developpment, 25–30 May 1991, Annaba (Algeria).
6.
BrayM. J.LeeJ. N.2000. ‘University Revenues from Technology Transfer: Licensing Fees vs Equity Positions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15Nos 5/6, pp. 385–392.
7.
ChandraN.KrishnaV.V., ‘Academia-Industry Links: Modes of Knowledge Transfer at the Indian Institutes of Technology’, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, (forthcoming).
8.
ChandraN.2003. ‘Academia-Industry Interface in Technology Commercialisation: A Case of Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi’, MPhil dissertation, CSSP/SSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
9.
CohenW.FloridaR.RandazzeseL.WalshJ., 1998. ‘Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance’, in NollR. (ed.), Challenges to the Research University.Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution.
10.
DattaS.2006. ‘FITT Yes but Fine?’ 17 July 2006. Outlook, Vol. XLVI, No. 28, pp. 58–64.
11.
di GregorioD.ShaneS.2003. ‘Why Do Some Universities Generate More Startups than Others?’Research PolicyVol. 32, No. 2, pp. 209–27.
12.
EtzkowitzH. 23 October 2003. ‘Learning From Transition: The Triple Helix as an Innovation System’, paper presented at the symposium on Knowledge Based Society: A Challenge for New EU and Accession Countries, Zagreb, Croatia.
13.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.1998. ‘Entrepreneurial Science: the Second Academic Revolution’. In EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP. (eds.), Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of Industry and Academia, New York: State University of New York Press.
14.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL.2000. ‘The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a “Triple Helix” of University-Industry-Government Relations’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 109–23.
15.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP. (eds.). 1998. Capitalizing knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, New York: State University of New York Press.
16.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.GebhardtC.TerraB. R. C.2000. ‘The Future of The University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 313–30.
17.
EtzkowitzH.2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, London and New York: Routledge Press.
18.
FreemanC.LundvallB. A.1988. Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London: Pinter.
19.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM.1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.
20.
GraffG.HeimanA.ZilbermanD.2002. ‘University Research and Offices of Technology Transfer’, California Management Review, Fall, Vol. 45, No. 1.
21.
IITDAA.2004. Vision 2020: The IIT in the New Millennium, New Delhi: IIT Delhi Alumni Association, March 2004.
22.
Indian Institute of Technology Review Committee, 1986. Recommendations of the IIT Review Committee, Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, available at accessed on 01 July 2008.
23.
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Annual Reports, 1999–2000 to 2005–06.IIT Bombay, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively.
24.
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Annual Reports, 1999–2000 to 2005–06.IIT Delhi, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively.
25.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Annual Reports, 1999–2000 to 2006–07.IIT Kanpur 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 respectively.
26.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Annual Reports, 1999–2000 to 2005–06.IIT Kharagpur, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively.
27.
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Annual Reports, 1999–2000 to 2005–06.IIT Madras. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively.
28.
Indian Institutes of Technology Review Committee, 2004. Report of the Review Committee, New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, 2004 available at http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/iitk/newhtml/reviewcom.htm accessed several times between 17 October 2007 and 18 July 2008.
29.
JacobM.LundqvistM.HellsmarkH.2003. ‘Entrepreneurial Transformations in the Swedish University System: The Case of Chalmers University of Technology, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1555–1568.
30.
KlineS. J.RosenbergN.1986. ‘An Overview of Innovation’, in LandauR.RosenbergN. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp.275–305.
31.
KumarD., 1995. Science and the Raj, 1857–1905, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
LockettA.WrightM.FranklinS.2003.‘Technology Transfer and Universities’ Spinout Strategies’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 185–200.
34.
LundvallB. Å. (ed.). 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive learning, London: Pinter.
35.
MansfieldE.1995. ‘Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 77, No. 1, 1995, pp. 55–65.
36.
MohanS.2006. ‘Innovation to Incubation’, paper presented at the Second Global Conference on India R&D, Mind to Market, 6 December, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.
37.
MoweryD. C.2001. ‘The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh Dole Act of 1980’, Research Policy, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 99–119.
38.
MoweryD. C.1999. ‘The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US University Research and Technology Transfer’, in BranscombL., (ed.). Industrializing Knowledge, Cambridge and MA: MIT Press.
39.
NelsonR. R. (ed.). 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ReadingsB.1996. The University in Ruins, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
42.
Sarkar Committee Report. 1946. An Interim Report of the Committee Appointed to Consider the Development of Higher Technical Institutions in India, New Delhi: Central Bureau of Education.
43.
ShaneS.2002. ‘Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT’, Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 122–137.
44.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD.LinkA.2003. ‘Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study’, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 27–48.
45.
TeeceD.1986. ‘Profiting from Technological Innovations’, Research Policy, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1986, pp. 285–305.
46.
TeeceD.PisanoG.ShuenA.1997. ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509–33.
47.
WebsterA.EtzkowitzH.1991. ‘Academy-Industry Relations: The Second Academic Revolution?’, PSG Concept Paper No.12, SPSG, London, 1991, quoted in A. Webster, ‘International Evaluation of Academic-Industry Relations: Contexts and Analysis’, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1994, pp. 72–78.
48.
ZuckerL.DarbyM.ArmstrongJ.2002. ‘Commercializing Knowledge: University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology’, Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2002, pp. 138–53.