Countering recent arguments that we should "unbundle" or "disrupt" higher education, Jason Owen-Smith argues that research universities are unique gems that deserve our financial and social support. While they are complex and costly, their enduring value is threefold: they simultaneously act as sources of new knowledge, anchors for regional and national economies, and hubs that connect disparate parts of society. Based on his stellar research, he offers a fresh and stirring defense of an endangered class of institutions just in time.
University experts can offer uniquely valuable insights for informing policy based on expertise they develop through research. The application of knowledge through public service is an important and understudied mechanism for translating academic expertise to government and other communities. Today universities encourage researchers to engage in public service, and often they actively provide institutional support to create a culture and environment where such pro bono work is regarded as an important activity by the research community. Yet the question remains as to whether or not a systematic mechanism exists to track, record, and measure the value of university expertise influencing policy within the context of research. We explore a useful but underutilized administrative data source, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) database, with an eye towards linking the federal service data to other sources in order to measure research impact in a sociopolitical setting. This publicly available dataset contains rich information on federal advisory committees that play an important role in shaping national programs and policies. Each year an average of 900 advisory committees with more than 60,000 members have provided either policy or grant review advice in 40 different issue areas. Our exploratory findings suggest a steady increase of academics in federal service, the different level of federal service contribution by universities, and the association between federal service and university R&D spending. We also discuss the importance of data cleaning when using administrative data for research and data linkage methods when linking federal service data to university research spending records.
We contend that two important, nonrelational, features of formal interorganizational networks—geographic propinquity and organizational form—fundamentally alter the flow of information through a network. Within regional economies, contractual linkages among physically proximate organizations represent relatively transparent channels for information transfer because they are embedded in an ecology rich in informal and labor market transmission mechanisms. Similarly, we argue that the spillovers that result from proprietary alliances are a function of the institutional commitments and practices of members of the network. When the dominant nodes in an innovation network are committed to open regimes of information disclosure, the entire structure is characterized by less tightly monitored ties. The relative accessibility of knowledge transferred through contractual linkages to organizations determines whether innovation benefits accrue broadly to membership in a coherent network component or narrowly to centrality. We draw on novel network visualization methods and conditional fixed effects negative binomial regressions to test these arguments for human therapeutic biotechnology firms located in the Boston metropolitan area.
