Search results

Undergraduate information commons have become pervasive in the academic library landscape. In recent years, librarians and administrators have come to identify the need for comparable commons’ spaces and services for graduate students. This chapter serves as a review of recently developed models of graduate commons—in this discussion referred to as Scholars’ Commons—as defined by an integration of physical learning spaces, personnel, and a dynamic availability of research support services that support assist graduate students throughout their academic life cycle. These provisions serve as the foundation for the development of enhanced library-supported graduate student success.

Still a rare commodity, existing models from selected institutional web sites were examined using a framework for analysis consisting of several criteria: new use of space; segmented services; partnerships; and new organizational structures. Through a synthesis of the commonalities prevalent in these systems, this chapter aims to provide recommendations for prospective Scholars’ Commons models and proposals for their development. Library organizations contemplating the development of a Scholars’ Commons need to consider the needs of their target population, potential new or reallocated spaces, feasibility of providing support and research technologies, and possible staffing models. As well, the authors consider the importance of library-based graduate student support that bolsters cross-divisional collaborative partnerships across the academy.

The burgeoning interest over the last decade in technology transfer at universities in the United States has driven contentious debates over patent policy. In this context, biotech patenting has become the poster-child for claims that the proliferation of patenting by universities, and in the private sector, is undermining scientific norms and threatening innovation. Commentators have expressed particular fears about the negative effects of biotech patenting on the public information commons and concerns about emerging “patent anticommons.” This chapter argues that the standard (finite) commons model is being misapplied in the biotech arena because, owing to the complexity of biological processes and the power of existing biotech methods to produce genetic data, biomedical science is, in crucial respects, an unbounded, uncongested common resource. These findings imply that strategic biotech patenting of problem-specific research tools (i.e., single-nucleotide polymorphisms, drug targets) is not economically justified and therefore is irrational.

Scientific knowledge has characteristics of a pure public good. It is non-rivalrous in the sense that once generated, it is neither depleted nor diminished by use. Knowledge is also non-excludable since, once it is made available, in the absence of clearly defined property rights, users cannot be excluded from using it. These aspects imply that private market mechanisms will not provide adequate incentives for knowledge creation. Legal property rights, such as patents, are one means of dealing with this problem. Patronage in the form of government support for research provides another solution, as does the priority system of awarding credit for scientific discoveries to the first to find them. In the last two decades, there has been a growth in the relative importance of the use of legal property rights in the university setting and with it a growing controversy as to whether the costs may be outweighing the benefits. In this chapter, we discuss issues and evidence with regard to the ownership and licensing of publicly funded research intellectual property rights (IPR). We begin with an overview of incentives created by the patent system and discuss the ways in which these incentives differ from traditional norms of science. We then draw on the legal and economic literatures which distinguish among the incentives to invent, disclose, and innovate, and argue that the rationale for providing IPR for university research stems from the last of these. Finally, we discuss the available evidence on the creation and diffusion of academic research under current IPR regimes.

Over the last 30 years, the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada has advanced sustainable development on campus and created a culture of sustainability, with ambitious goals, and strong collaborative relationships. Launched in 2010, the Campus as a Living Laboratory (CLL) initiative utilizes the campus buildings and infrastructure as opportunities for research, teaching, and learning. Projects under the CLL bring together academic researchers, students, staff, and partners to demonstrate, test, research, and learn from new ideas for sustainable development. These projects range in scale from small and discrete educational or research projects, often led by students, to the design and construction of innovative buildings, with multiyear interdisciplinary research programs. CLL projects are opportunities for UBC students to engaged in applied research and learning that enhances their educational experience at the university, and may serve as models for other universities interested in expanding sustainable development on their campuses.

This chapter describes how a strategic change in the mission of the library led to the collaborative development of library services to meet the needs for innovation and creative spaces in a large urban public university. Several years ago, the Oviatt Library at California State University, Northridge, adopted a new vision that included supporting and encouraging creativity and innovation on campus. In this chapter, the authors will describe three ways in which this new strategic perspective has changed the nature of our library (and libraries in general). First, the authors will share the results of a survey of business librarians, which reveals the changing attitudes of librarians toward entrepreneurship and innovation in libraries. Second, the authors will describe the Creative Media Studio, housed in the Oviatt Library’s Learning Commons, which was created in 2014 as a space to create music, use high-end video editing tools, and fabricate three-dimensional objects with 3D printers. Third, the authors will discuss a recent campus-wide task force, chaired by the Library Dean, which recommends the construction of a large makerspace in the heart of the Oviatt Library, collaborating not only with the College of Business but also with the College of Engineering, the College of Arts, Media and Communication, and the new University Incubator. This chapter will outline how library personnel have partnered with faculty, staff, and administration to bridge gaps in curriculum and provide instruction in multimedia creation, including licensing and copyright, for students involved in innovative activities and entrepreneurial ventures. The chapter will also describe the library’s role in the evolution of the Creative Media Studio, the development of the new campus makerspace, and the ways in which librarians are evolving from traditional roles to more entrepreneurial responsibilities. Finally, the authors will discuss best practices in developing partnerships for new innovative and creative spaces and services by illustrating the challenges and successes in sustaining partnerships with internal and external stakeholders.