The study presents extensive data from 167 faculty and administration, primarily drawn from many of the world’s the world’s leading engineering programs, especially from the United States but also from Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand.
The 64-page report presents findings on how faculty and administration evaluate the efforts of their respective universities to manage patents, organize sponsored research opportunities, incentivize faculty to develop and submit technology to university authorities, publicize university research and pursue research opportunities for faculty. The study provides specific data on each of these areas, as well as measuring feelings about university policies on the role of Chinese and Russian nationals in technology research.
The report also gives detailed data on opinions on whether financial support to departments promoting and managing university technology transfer, sponsored research and other related areas should be increased, decreased or left unchanged.
Data in the report is broken out by many personal and institutional criteria including gender, compensation level, academic title, field of engineering, engineering program ranking, US/Non-USA and many other variables.
Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:
- Deans and department heads were much happier than full professors with the performance of the technology transfer and sponsored research offices.
- Men were more enthusiastic than women as 22.58% of men nut only 13.95% of women thought the university performance in promoting technology excellent.
- In the area of university prowess in patent management, full professors were tough graders: More than 32% of professors awarded a C or a D and only 11.76% gave out the coveted A.
- For the most part satisfaction with the university incentives structure for incentivizing faculty to create patents and other intellectual property for the university tended to increase with the income level of the survey participant.
- Survey respondents in biomedical engineering were more likely than their peers in other areas of engineering to believe that technology access controls on students and faculty from Russia and China were too lax and merited tightening.
Sources / Contributors
- Brown University
- Colorado State University
- Cornell University
- Curtin University
- Duke University
- Florida International University
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Georgia Tech Research Institute
- Harvard University
- Imperial College London
- Johns Hopkins University
- Lehigh University
- Massey University
- McGill University
- Milwaukee School of Engineering
- Monash University
- MSOE University
- Northeastern University
- Penn State University
- Princeton University
- Queen Mary University of London
- Rice University
- Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
- Saint Louis University
- Staffs University
- Swinburne University
- Texas A&M University
- The University of British Columbia
- The University of Iowa
- The University of Western Australia
- Universidad de Jaén
- University of Alabama
- University of Alberta
- University of Auckland
- University of Calgary
- University of California Davis
- University of California Riverside
- University of California Santa Barbara
- University of California
- University of Connecticut
- University of Florida
- University of Idaho
- University of Illinois
- University of Michigan
- University of Missouri
- University of Pennsylvania
- University of Pittsburgh
- University of San Diego
- University of South Carolina
- University of South Florida
- University of Texas at Austin
- University of Toronto
- University of Utah
- University of Wisconsin–Madison
- UT Southwestern Medical Center
- Vanderbilt University
- Yale University