The View from Both Sides: University-Industry Applied Research Contracts

By Allen, Martha L.; Burkhalter, Bettye B. et al. | Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, Summer 1989 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The View from Both Sides: University-Industry Applied Research Contracts

Allen, Martha L., Burkhalter, Bettye B., Parks, Paul F., Journal of the Society of Research Administrators



The rapid shift from debates over basic versus applied research to actual applied research contracting between industries and universities left a void in information for both the pre-agreement (personal, organizational, and initiation factors) and agreement (negotiations, contract provisions, and fulfillment) phases of such contracts. The need for qualitative and quantitative research to build operational models and establish guidelines has been widely reported.

The specific purposes of this study were (a) to identify recurring patterns in the pre-agreement and agreement phases of such contracts which could affect the success or failure of applied research contracts and (b) to provide qualitative in-depth case studies for comparison and reference.

Conclusions draw from in-depth case studies were (a) a declining industrial philanthropic attitude, (b) mutual enthusiasm for one-on-one contracts, (c) mutual expectations of increasing directed basic and applied contracts, (d) patent ownership conflicts, (e) mutual awareness of the need for cooperative research, (f) compatibility of expectations, and (g) awareness of university patent management efforts.

A research project of four case studies of one-on-one university-industry applied research contracting paired four research universities with four major corporations in locations from the East Coast to the West. These cases provided a wealth of information on factors which contributed to the success of contracts dating from 1984-1987, rangin in value from $15K to $7M, and dealing with topics as diverse as tilt-tray design and reevaluation, design and synthesis of cellulose substantive dyes, distributed computing technology, and evaluation and development of warp sizing products.

In the early stages of the project, the desire study "applied" rather than "basic" research cases revived traditional questions on whether applied research was, could be, or should be conducted by universities. Some industrialists with whom the project was discussed felt university research had been and would continue to be primarily theoretical, "ivory tower" and mentioned what they perceived as problems of confidentiality and slowness of university research. Some academicians questioned the appropriateness and practicality of applied research as a function of the university. Similar attitudes were reflected on a national level in the 1980-84 era [1]. But by 1985-88, such attitudes were declining, as international competition and technology transfer issues intensified. Questions of academic freedom, while still important, were overtaken by questions on intellectual property rights, publication restrictions, and exclusive and nonexclusive licensing. Statements on the necessity and value of cooperative research at all stages of R&D came from industry and academia, and The Wall Street Journal cited an astounding 150% increase in industrial support of university research from 1980-86 [2].

But research on university-industry research contracting during this period was limited to three-party contracts (university-industry-government) [3], surveys of attitudes on impediments to such relationship [4], and empirical studies of the National Science Foundation cooperative research centers [5]. Teh one-on-one university and industry contracts that were analyzed were the sensational multi-million-dollar ones (i.e., MIT-Whitehead, Washington University-Monsanto et al.) that included both basic and applied research [6]. While studies were slow to materialize, guidelines generated by national conferences and individuals were plentifu [7], along with legal advice [8], surveys on conflicts of interest and delay of publication [9], "how to's" on contract writing [12], and compendiums on intellectual property rights [11].

Case Study Objectives

The lack of data on actual cases of applied contracting served as the impetus for this research project.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The View from Both Sides: University-Industry Applied Research Contracts


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?