Expanding Research Capacity at United States Universities: a Study of Academic Research and Development Investment from 1990–2005

Abstract

Growing emphasis has been placed on universities to contribute to the innovation process and as a result academic research and development expenditures have increased in recent years. Nevertheless, little is known about the specific ways in which universities have expanded their research capacity. This paper examines how universities in the United States (US) have expanded research capacity as research funding has increased. Specifically, it identifies what type of research infrastructure, including various categories of human capital and research equipment, are most closely associated with increased academic research funding. Using data from 375 US universities spanning the period 1990–2005, through multiple regression analysis this study finds that ‘traditional’ and new ‘market’ based elements of research capacity are associated with increased research funding. The implications of this study extend beyond the US since many countries are both investing in expanding research capacity and transforming the way research is organised within universities.

University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network

“…The AAU is the oldest and arguably the most elite association of research universities in North America and having membership has shown to be a decidedly positive predictor of an institutions’ research capacity (Cantwell and Mathies, 2012). It develops national policy positions on issues related to academic research and graduate and professional education and provides a forum for discussing a broad range of other institutional issues.…”

Revisiting the Global Knowledge Economy: The Worldwide Expansion of Research and Development Personnel, 1980–2015

“…State-led postsecondary systems are consistently more likely to propel R&D capacity including in the private R&D sector. Within this group of strong state-backed systems, we find such diverse cases as Singapore, South Korea and Denmark which all prove that strong state oversight does not contradict the dynamic of R&D expansion (Cantwell and Mathies 2012 ; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000 ; Mok 2010 ). This finding is also in line with previous research which sees the state as an active agent in “interventionist” research governance (Zapp, Helgetun and Powell 2018 ; Elzinga 2012 ; Cozzens and Woodhouse 1995 ).…”

“…Related arguments hold that R&D expansion is a function of investments into knowledge infrastructure. For academic R&D expansion, this line of explanation echoes so-called "externalist" arguments from the sociology of science whereby the growth of science is primarily determined by conditions outside of academia, notably funding (Cantwell and Mathies 2012;Elzinga 2012). Following this logic, richer countries dedicate more resources to their training and research systems, and can accommodate larger numbers of researchers who in turn, enter industry and transform jobs and labor markets.…”

“…genetics in China) creates the critical mass and necessary freedom to boost innovations which would otherwise hardly see the light of day. Similar efforts in research on cancer, climate change, educational assessment or the recent Covid-19 pandemic are also examples of “commissioned” agendas with countries as diverse as Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea proving that tight governance, strong public oversight of higher education systems and industry regulation do not necessarily mean a trade-off vis-à-vis dynamic innovation (Cantwell and Mathies 2012 ; Mok 2010 ; Wang 2018 ). Following this latter argument, I posit that the growth of the knowledge economy shows higher rates in countries with higher degrees of steering capacity as reflected in strong public higher education systems.…”

Citation Impact Factors Among Faculty in Canadian Social Work Programs

“…It has been challenging for the social work profession (among others) to develop academic cultures to enhance their research capacity (Barner, Holosko, Thyer, & King, 2015; Cantwell & Mathies, 2012; Holosko & Barner, 2014; McRoy, Flanzer, & Zlotnik, 2012). These difficulties in the United States have led to (a) the widening of the long-standing schism between social work researchers and practitioners, (b) the profession’s proclivity to appending research to practice rather indiscriminately rather than using an integrative evidence-informed approach, (c) precluding the conduct of research and evaluation in local agencies and organizations where social work is practiced, and (d) minimizing the importance of research to the profession overall (Barner et al, 2013).…”