This paper proposes a model of interactions between university scientists and the private sector in which graduate students feature as important enablers. This conceptualization proposes that students represent a dimension of scientists' research capacity which improves their ability to identify and act on industry-related opportunities, and which also makes them more feasible research partners from the standpoint of industry. The results show that university scientists' student-related behaviour, such as grant support of students and research collaboration with them, and their student-related attitudes, such as their mentoring orientation, positively affect both the probability that scientists will engage in interaction with industry and the intensity of that interaction. The implications for policy and theory are discussed.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986), ‘The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51, No 6, pp 1173–1182.
2.
BehrensT.R.GrayD.O. (2001), ‘Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 2, pp 179–199.
3.
BlumenthalD.GluckM.LouisK.S.StotoM.A.WiseD. (1986), ‘University–industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university’, Science, Vol 232, No 4756, pp 1361–1366.
4.
BozemanB.CorleyE. (2004), ‘Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital’, Research Policy, Vol 33, No 4, pp 599–616.
5.
BozemanB.DietzJ.S.GaughanM. (2001), ‘Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 22, No 7–8, pp 716–740.
6.
BozemanB.GaughanM. (2007), ‘Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers', interactions with industry’, Research Policy, Vol 36, pp 694–707.
7.
CampbellT.I.D.SlaughterS. (1999), ‘Faculty and administrators' attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university–industry relationships’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol 70, No 3, pp 309–332.
CoburnC.M.BrownD.M. (1997), ‘A state–federal partnership in support of science and technology: Response’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 11, No 4, pp 296–309.
10.
CroissantJ.RestivoS.P. (2001), Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
11.
DavidP.A. (1994), ‘Positive feedbacks and research productivity in science: Reopening another black box’, in GranstrandO., ed, Economics of Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo, pp 65–85.
12.
DietzJ.S. (2004), Scientists and Engineers in Academic Research Centers: An Examination of Career Patterns and Productivity, doctoral thesis submitted to the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
13.
DillmanD.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Willey, New York.
14.
FellerI.RoessnerD. (1995a), ‘What does industry expect from university partnerships? Congress wants to see bottom-line results from industry/government programs, but that is not what the participating companies are seeking’, Issues in Science and Technology, Vol 12, No 1, p 80.
15.
FellerI.RoessnerD. (1995b), ‘What does industry expect from university partnerships?’, Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 1995, pp 80–84.
16.
FoxM.F. (1983), ‘Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 13, pp 285–305.
17.
FriedmanR.S.FriedmanR.C. (1982), The Role of University Organized Research Units in Academic Science, Pennsylvania State University Center for the Study of Higher Education, University Park, PA.
18.
JohnsM.M.E.BarnesM.FlorencioP.S. (2003), ‘Restoring balance to industry–academia relationships in an era of institutional financial conflicts of interest: Promoting research while maintaining trust’, Jama – Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 289, No 6, pp 741–746.
19.
LewisD. (2001), Does Technology Incubation Work?, US Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC.
20.
LinM.-W.BozemanB. (2006), ‘Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 31, No 2, pp 269–290.
21.
MertonR.K. (1968), ‘Matthew effect in science’, Science, Vol 159, No 3810, pp 56–63.
22.
MoweryD.SampatB.N. (2006), ‘Universities in national innovation systems’, in FagerbergJ.MoweryD.NelsonR., eds, Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 209–239.
23.
Owen-SmithJ. (2003), ‘From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities’, Research Policy, Vol 32, No 6, pp 1081–1104.
24.
PavittK. (2006), ‘Innovation processes’, in FagerbergJ.MoweryD.NelsonR., eds, Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 86–114.
25.
Poyago-TheotokyJ.BeathJ.SiegelD.S. (2002), ‘Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 10–21.
26.
RahmD. (1994), ‘Academic perceptions of university–firm technology transfer’, Policy Studies Journal, Vol 22, No 2, pp 267–278.
27.
RandazzeseL.P. (1996), ‘Exploring university–industry technology transfer of CAD technology’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 43, No 4, pp 393–401.
28.
RoessnerD.AilesC.P.FellerI.ParkerL. (1998), ‘How industry benefits from NSF's Engineering Research Centers’, Research–Technology Management, Vol 41, No 5, pp 40–44.
29.
RomerP.M. (2000), Should the Government Subsidize Supply or Demand in the Market for Scientists and Engineers?, National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
30.
SlaughterS.CampbellT.HollemanM.MorganE. (2002), ‘The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol 27, No 2, pp 282–312.
31.
StephanP.E. (1996), ‘The economics of science’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 34, No 3, pp 1199–1235.
32.
ZuckerL.G.DarbyM.R. (1996), ‘Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol 93, No 23, pp 12709–12716.
33.
ZuckerL.G.DarbyM.R.BrewerM.B. (1998), ‘Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises’, American Economic Review, Vol 88, No 1, pp 290–306.
