Denis O. Gray

Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome

The research policy community has produced a significant body of empirical research on benefits of cooperative research between industry and university. However, in spite of a lively policy debate on the subject, it has all but ignored empirical study on the “costs” or unintended consequences of these activities (e.g., erosion of academic freedom). In fact, only four empirical articles assessing various “costs” were found in the literature. The current study attempted to inform the debate about benefits vs. costs of cooperative research by examining the impact of source of funding (industry, government and no external sponsor) and form of funding (single source, consortial, or unfunded) on a variety of research processes and outcomes for a particularly vulnerable population — graduate students; it also involved the development and evaluation of a measure of “climate for academic freedom”. The study used a purposive stratified sample of graduate students from the same two engineering departments at six US universities (N=482). Although some minor differences were found, the results failed to support claims that sponsorship by industry negatively affect student experiences or outcomes. Consistent with the predictions of some observers, the most striking differences were observed between sponsored projects and projects with no external sponsor. Exploratory analyses identified several variables that do explain differences in perceived “climate for academic freedom”. Implications of these findings for research policy and future research on unintended consequences are discussed.

Industry–University Research Centers: A Multivariate Analysis of Member Retention

Although a growing literature documents the benefits of industry–university research centers, most centers experience a significant amount of turnover among their industrial members. In order to gain a better understanding of this phenomenon, the current study attempts to identify factors that predict member renewal (DV). Questionnaire data were collected from industrial respondents (N=249) participating in 39 centers funded by the NSF IUCRC program. Structural, member benefits and administrative process variables were used to predict the dependent variable. Logistic regression analyses identified three significant predictors: professional networking benefits, research relevance and administrative operations. Implications of these findings for public policy, cooperative research management and future research are discussed.

Government-sponsored industry-university cooperative research: an analysis of cooperative research center evaluation approaches

Ex-ante, interim and outcome evaluation approaches used at the program, center and project-level of analysis for four separate co-operative research center initiatives are examined. Center initiatives have received much evaluative scrutiny since 1980, particularly interim and outcome assessments. The modified peer-review technique has most use. The strengths and weaknesses of novel approaches and their applicability to more traditional research funding schemes are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The police stress inventory: Does it measure stress?

Research on stress among law enforcement personnel has not kept pace with the interest in this subject. This study had two primary objectives: to extend the psychometric evaluation of a modified version of Lawrences Police Stress Inventory (PSI) and to evaluate empirically its concurrent convergent and discriminant validity. Data were collected from 259 certified North Carolina law enforcement officers. Factor analysis and various psychometric analyses raised some concerns about the structural integrity of the PSI. Further analyses revealed that the PSI correlated more highly with a job satisfaction measure than with another measure of stress and, thus, failed to exhibit discriminant validity. These findings suggest that the PSI is not a valid measure of stress. It is argued that research findings about stress have serious implications for policy and practice and that considerable care must be taken in developing and selecting instruments that purport to measure stress among law enforcement officers.

Cross-sector research collaboration in the USA: a national innovation system perspective

This article uses a conceptual framework drawn from a national innovation systems (NIS) perspective to examine cross-sector research collaboration (CSRC) in the USA. The article describes how CSRC happens, how this relates to critical historical and public policy elements of the US NIS and examines how effective this approach has been. In the USA, CSRC is a product of both historical factors and the evolving system of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy that has its roots in both the federal and state/local levels of government. These forces and other social and economic factors have resulted in a diverse collection of both informal and formal linkage mechanisms. Implications for US public policy and other NIS are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Industry-University Projects and Centers An Empirical Comparison of Two Federally Funded Models of Cooperative Science

It is widely held that improved industry-university (I- U) cooperation can contribute to technological innovation and productivity in the United States. Although various federal programs have attempted to stimulate cooperation between these two sectors, most have escaped serious evaluative scrutiny. This study describes an exception to this trend: an empirical evaluation and comparison of two federally funded programs designed to foster cooperative science. Among other findings, results appear to indicate that participants in I-U Projects perceive applied objectives like patent development as the most important goal of their collaboration, whereas I- U Centers promote a more basic goal of knowledge expansion. Participants within each model exhibit high agreement on the goals of their collaboration. In addition, both programs appear to stimulate new research projects back in corporate laboratories.

ESID, Dissemination, and Community Psychology: A Case of Partial Implementation?

Dissemination, the second stage of Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) is a critical, if not defining, element of this social change model. This paper attempts to assess the extent to which community psychology has adopted and implemented ESIDs dissemination focus in its training and publications. We identify four levels of commitment to dissemination: dissemination advocate, dissemination activist, dissemination researcher, and experimental dissemination researcher. Content analyses of textbooks, journal publications, and conference papers and a brief survey of doctoral training in the field were conducted. Findings suggest that the dissemination aspects of ESID have been modestly and partially implemented within the field. That is, although there is some evidence of a commitment to dissemination practice (advocate, activist), there is much less evidence of a commitment to dissemination research. The implications of these findings for the effectiveness of the ESID model and for training and practice in community psychology are discussed.

Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance

The challenges to conducting valid and complete outcome evaluations of cooperative research activities, like the National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) Program, are daunting. The current study tries to make a small but important contribution to this area by attempting to develop quantitative estimates of one center benefit - R&D cost avoidance. Cost avoidance is operationalized as R&D costs industrial members would have incurred but did not, because they participated in university-based industrial consortia, minus the costs of belonging to the consortia. Data were collected from a total of 18 industrial sponsors from three IUCRCs on 35 different research projects. Findings indicate that some firms do avoid R&D costs by participating in an IUCRC but the prevalence of this benefit varies across centers and across firms. The implications of these findings for policy, practice and future research are discussed.

Experimental social innovation and client-centered job-seeking programs

ConclusionsThe complexity of most social problems and a growing human services shortfall dictate that we reevaluate our approach to planned social change. Simplistic one-shot evaluations of social interventions are unlikely to yield the kind of information that will help us identify true social innovations, understand and refine their instrumental processes, and thereby optimize their effects. However, incremental progress in these areas is possible through the pursuit of ESI or other systematic and rigorous approaches to outcome research.

The New Science and Engineering Management: Cooperative Research Centers as Intermediary Organizations for Government Policies and Industry Strategies

The US Small Business Administration defines intermediary organizations as those that facilitate linkages and cooperation among businesses and between firms and government and nonprofit organizations such as universities, local chambers of commerce, community groups, and state and local government. The term has been used to characterize boundary-spanning management in a broad range of areas, from firm collaboration for innovation and manufacturing, to the joint provision of public education, to the development of improvements in community building, agriculture, and mortgage-lending practices. The term is relatively new, but research and theory on intermediary organizations is not new to policy scholars and organizational economists focused on scientific and technical innovation, e.g., the extant literatures on the design and development of bridging institutions for innovation-based economic development including technology transfer offices, research parks, technology incubators, industry consortia, and what we broadly refer to as cooperative research centers or “CRCs”—which promote collaborative, cross-sector research and development for technological innovation, commercialization and, ultimately, social and economic outcomes.