The executive science network: University trustees and the organization of university industry exchanges

本研究探讨大学董事会与大学高层管理人员的外部利益如何影响企业与产业间的创新。以前的研究已经注意到，属于美国大学协会（AAU）的私立和公立大学的受托人的组成和职能存在差异。私立大学的受托人往往是科学公司的负责人，同时也是其他公司的董事会成员。 随着时间的推移，受托人的研究兴趣和他们所管理的大学的研究兴趣在他们申请专利的领域和他们的大学获得资助的广泛科学领域方面变得更加相似。 私立AAU大学的受托人和高级大学管理层形成了一个密集的网络，其中一个成员与其他成员的距离不超过半步，构成了一个执行科学网络，为企业和行业之间的创新创造了渠道。 公立AAU大学的受托人不属于这个网络。 这项研究收集了更多的数据，扩大了早期研究的时间范围，同时扩大了范围，包括公立大学基金会的受托人（正常距离组织），因为试点研究表明，这些受托人可能是网络的一部分，并在公立大学和行业之间创造创新渠道，而不是政治任命的公立大学受托人。 使用网络分析和回归分析来分析数据以理解网络如何起作用（即，是否受托人？企业？在生物技术网络或子网络或计算机科学子网络中的位置预测大学研究资金的成功;是否受托人？公司可能向它们所管理的大学申请专利或与它们建立伙伴关系）。这些定量数据的增强与60受托人在4所大学的采访，以深入了解受托人？企业与其管理的大学的交流以及这些交流如何促进技术发展和经济创新。 然而，如果受托人和大学高级官员将大学作为公司进行管理，并与公司建立交流（无论是作为首席执行官还是董事会成员），则可能会产生机构性利益冲突。 而信托公司？大学都可能从这些交流中受益，但追求技术发展可能会损害大学科学（即，通过强调某些类型的科学而不是其他类型的科学）。因此，访谈不仅关注受托人与大学在技术开发方面的交流，还关注受托人和高级管理人员如何处理机构利益冲突。 该项目的更广泛影响有几个。 首先，该项目推进了我们对研究型大学受托人在将创新科学推向市场，增强美国国际竞争力方面所起作用的理解。 第二，本研究比较公私立大学受托人在企业与产业间的渠道，找出促进创新的受托人特质。 第三，该项目研究了受托人如何参与与他们所管理的大学的交流管理机构的利益冲突，为其他研究型大学提出了最佳做法。所有这三个更广泛的影响将有助于制定政策，使研究型大学能够更好地参与技术开发和经济创新，从而促进经济增长。

This study explores how the external interests of university trustees and senior university officers influence innovation between academe and industry. Previous research has noted a difference in the composition and function of the trustees of private and public universities belonging to the American Association of Universities (AAU). Trustees of private universities are often heads of science-based corporations and simultaneously members of boards of directors of other corporation(s). Over time trustee research interests and those of the universities of which they are stewards become more similar with regard to areas in which they patent and broad fields of science in which their universities are funded. The trustees and senior university management of private AAU universities form a dense network, in which one member is not more than half a step away from any other, constituting an executive science network that creates channels for innovation between academe and industry. Trustees of public AAU universities are not part of this network. This study gathers additional data extending the temporal coverage of the earlier research while broadening the scope to include trustees of public university foundations (arms-length organizations) because pilot research suggests that these trustees may be part of the network and create channels of innovation between public universities and industry rather than public university trustees who are political appointments. The data are analyzed using network analysis and regression analysis to understand how the network functions (i.e., whether trustees? firms? position in biotechnology networks or sub networks or computer science sub networks predicts success in university research funding; whether trustees? firms are likely to patent with or have partnerships with the universities of which they are stewards). These quantitative data are augmented by interviews with 60 trustees at 4 universities to gain in-depth understanding of trustees? corporate exchanges with the universities they govern and how these contribute to technology development and economic innovation. However, if trustees and senior university officers are managing their universities as firms and establishing exchanges with their corporate firms (whether as CEO or member of a board of directors) the possibility of institutional conflict of interest arises. While trustees firms? and universities may both benefit by these exchanges, there is a possibility that pursuit of technology development may harm university science (i.e., by emphasizing some types of science over others). Thus, the interviews focus not only on trustee-university exchange with regard to technology development, but also on how trustees and senior management handle institutional conflict of interest. Broader impacts of this project are several. First, this project advances our understanding of the part research university trustees play in bringing innovative science to the market place, enhancing U.S. ability to compete internationally. Second, the research compares public and private university trustee channels between academe and industry, identifying trustee characteristics that promote innovation. Third, the project examines how trustees involved in exchanges with the universities they govern manage institutional conflict of interest, suggesting best practices for other research universities. All three of these broader impacts will be helpful in developing policy to enable research universities to better participate in technology development and economic innovation that will lead to economic growth.