The paper is an exploratory study of science parks in the United States. It models the history of science parks as the diffusion of an innovation that was adopted at a rapid and increasing rate in the early 1980s, and since then at a decreased rate.
Browse by title
Albert N. Link and John T. Scott
David B. Audretsch and Albert N. Link
Edited by David B. Audretsch and Albert N. Link
Richard Philip Winter
Chapter 1 portrays managing as a sensemaking process and assumes academic-managers will exercise some degree of choice in choosing perspectives of managing that best fit their social worlds and their own personal beliefs, values and goal intentions. A process of sensemaking lets managers see how their thinking may be associated with certain working relationships and scholarship outcomes within HEI and their wider communities. Keywords: sensemaking; ideologies; values; emotions; goal intentions; role expectations
Ulla Hytti, Robert Blackburn, Denise Fletcher and Friederike Welter
John A. Davis and Mark A. Farrell
In this chapter we argue that the higher education sector and the leaders of universities are remarkably resistant to change, and that the main impetus for innovation in higher education is the government. In an increasingly competitive and globalized world, governments look to higher education as a means to earn export dollars, make a contribution to society’s problems, and provide an educated work force for the economy. In this chapter we demonstrate that the view of higher education as a public good has been replaced with a government philosophy and policy direction that the main beneficiary of higher education is the private individual. In short, the individual receives a private benefit and as such is a consumer of higher education. Concomitantly, government is looking to the individual to shoulder an increasing financial burden as shrinking government budgets are stretched to meet the demands of other areas of the economy. The result is reduced government funding, increasing competition from traditional and non-traditional providers, and an increasingly demanding and sophisticated student/consumer.
John A. Davis and Mark A. Farrell
William Hefley, Dan Ding, Aimee Rosenbaum, Megan Kiniry, Jason Somma and Skyler Berry
As university-industry technology transfer gains in importance, so do the opportunities to learn about technology transfer. A recent service learning project was a collaboration between the Certificate Program in Leadership and Ethics (CPLE) Class of 2015, the Human Engineering Research Laboratories (HERL) and the Innovation Institute at the University of Pittsburgh. Analyses of technology commercialization options for HERL’s Smart Kitchen, and its separate components, were conducted in order to provide suggestions to HERL on possible technology roadmaps and pathways to bring their Smart Kitchen technologies to market for multiple populations that could be served by these technologies. Technology roadmaps, addressing short- and long-term commercialization pathways, were developed for each focal population (Wounded Warrior/Traumatic Brain Injury, Physically Disabled, Aging and Mass Market). Analyses of these roadmaps led to a set of recommendations for HERL’s short- and long-term commercialization plans. The goal of this project was to provide HERL with recommendations for potential pathways for bringing the Smart Kitchen from the labs to product stage and then into the market to provide assistance to the targeted user populations. By examining multiple target populations, we were able to demonstrate that commercialization pathways may not be a single path, but may be dependent on a number of factors such as target population and institutions in the target space. Another lesson was that research projects moving toward commercialization may need to augment their staff and resources to address technology transfer needs.