Search results

One of the primary problems in the production of cement testing cubes is inconsistency in quality due to skill differences between operators and low repeatability in human performance of identical operations. To eliminate this problem and to enhance productivity, a state‐of‐the‐art robot workcell system, which utilized a multitasking control strategy and tool changer and sensor technology to automatically produce cement testing cubes, was designed and integrated. A comparative analysis of compressive strength values of specimens made by human operators and robots indicated that the specimens made by the robot workcell system had lower variation than the human made ones. This study not only demonstrates that robot workcells are flexible and robust enough to be used in cement testing cube production, but also suggests that revision of American Society of Testing Methods (ASTM) procedures to facilitate implementation of high technology in the materials testing process should be considered.

Drawing on examples from the more developed realms of technology transfer and other “managerial professions” (Rhoades, 1998; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002) in the academy, this paper explores possible organizational sites for housing protocols for the measurement of the social value of individual innovations in higher education (that may enter the market or and augment or precede commercial valuation), and the possible implications of those different settings for the academy (particularly in terms of motivating more faculty to engage in more innovative and entrepreneurial activities). Organizational location matters. Organizational site is related to professional perspective and to the institutional outlook that attaches to various sorts of work in the academy. Five possible sites are explored, analyzing the dimensions of such locations from the experience of other “new” activities in universities. One type of site consists of an interstitial (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004), nonacademic, support unit of managerial professionals (neither faculty nor senior level administrators), as in an Office of Technology Transfer or an Office of Institutional Research. A second type of site would be an academic unit in which measurement tasks could be performed by faculty members. A third type of site would be a hybrid model that combines elements of the first two models, as in the case of entrepreneurship units in many universities. A fourth possible type of site would be to situate such activity in an intermediating association (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) outside of the university, which mediates between public and private sectors, and that promotes various sorts of innovation and measurement as in the case of Educause and innovative information technologies. A fifth type of site would consist of establishing university extension units in the community, to provide services more directly to constituents, as traditionally was the model for agricultural extension in land grant universities. Each of the models has its owns benefits and challenges, its implications for what sorts of professionals would be doing the work and what they would see their principal function as being, and for the impact they would have on the academic workforce and the institution's direction.

This volume centers on introducing and exploring issues of and approaches to demonstrating the potential nonexclusively commercial values of individual university innovations, such as social, ecological, and economic values of innovation that may be realized through movement to the private marketplace. The volume papers comprised the basis for discussion and formation of a 2008 colloquium that was conceptualized and organized by the McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship and co-hosted by the McGuire Center and the Office of Technology Transfer at The University of Arizona. The goal of the colloquium and conference volume was to increase university-based ability to advance innovation by conducting technology-specific assessments of the social (and other noncommercial) gains of the individual innovation. New technologies and knowledge sets generated by university faculty are most frequently measured for potential academic value by the innovating faculty member, department, and general peer structure, and for potential commercial value when appropriate by technology transfer offices and other market-oriented units that are charged with the management of the intellectual property of the institution. A formal, institutionally supported valuation of the social, ecological, and/or economic potential of individual innovations may provide evidence of gain needed to motivate more parties to become engaged in academic entrepreneurship. Thus, the capacities of colleges and universities to more confidently forecast the noncommercial value of new knowledge and discovery has the potential to act as an additional link in the often disconnected value proposition of university innovation.

The points I want to make about Conant in the rest of this commentary will not be devoted to the Carnegie philanthropy and its objectives, nor to the acuity of Conant’s observations on Australia or New Zealand. Those matters are best left to scholars from Australia or New Zealand like Craig Campbell. I do, however, want to offer some explanation for why Conant was so concerned with the secondary school in his Australian and New Zealand adventures, and to put that interest in the context of his own slight but meaningful encounter with public secondary education in the US, both prior to and after visiting Australia and New Zealand. Again, hubris seems to have played a role. Conant discoursed on secondary education as if he had an extended background on the topic. The truth was, however, that he had little experience in a high school, and no experience in a public high school.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

In this chapter, we consider the tensions that arise at the intersection of various organizational units (i.e., academic departments, research centers, and administrative areas) and actors (i.e., professors, graduate students, investors, and secular entrepreneurs) that are commonly involved with academic entrepreneurship and the exploration of the entrepreneurial dimensions of science. Using the premises of organizational boundary spanning (e.g., Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Thompson, 1967; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981), we organize our discussion around the role of university entrepreneurship and innovation centers in facilitating and mediating the interorganizational transactions that most often underpin academic entrepreneurship. Specifically, we illustrate and discuss the role university entrepreneurship and innovation centers play in (1) managing the various agendas and expectations of stakeholders within and outside of the academy, (2) providing clarity of purpose to the entrepreneurial endeavor, (3) clarifying ownership rights throughout the entrepreneurial process, and 4) maximizing the potential of individuals to contribute to venture success.

Research universities are recognized as primary sources of the knowledge essential to the development of innovative solutions to a wide range of economic, social, and ecological problems that affect humankind. This utilitarian function of American higher education dates back to the creation of land grant institutions with the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862 (Lucas, 1994; Veysey, 1965). The prominent higher education historian John R. Thelin (2004) described the importance of this land grant legislation by stating, “Its institutional legacy was the accessible state college and university, characterized by a curriculum that was broad and utilitarian” (p. 76). Shifts in the research paradigm that followed the World War II placed further emphasis on applied research that was to be “directed toward some individual or group or societal need or use” (Stokes, 1997, p. 8). Most recently, the utilitarian function of higher education has become closely linked to the commercialization of knowledge and discovery. Specifically, the passing of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allowed colleges and universities to take ownership of intellectual properties created in part or in full through federal funding, allowed the transfer of knowledge from higher education to society through market channels to become standard practice.

Purpose – In an era of increased public accountability, higher education institutions are expected to make greater contributions to local and regional economic development. First, this essay aims to provide a conceptual overview of the conventional approaches to economic development employed by research universities and community colleges. Second, a proposition for a novel approach to economic development that centers on direct collaboration between research universities and community colleges is introduced.

Method/approach – The first section of the essay relies on a critical overview of the scholarly literature that addresses the contributions of research universities and community colleges to local and regional economic development initiatives. The critique draws attention to the counter-productivity of institutional focus on national and global trends and dependency on existing business and industry. The second section includes a proposition for an alternate higher education vision for economic development that builds on the strengths and accounts for the weaknesses of current models as identified in the literature review.

Practical implications – The chapter introduces an alternate higher education vision for higher education that will be valuable to scholars and institutional leaders interested in examining and enhancing the capacities of research universities and community college to contribute to the vibrancy of local and regional economies.

Originality/value of paper – The primary contributions of the chapter are the overview of the higher education literature specific to local and regional economic development and the proposal of a novel economic development vision for higher education that involves institutional collaboration and local and regional positioning and strengthening.