Institutional Conflict of Interest: The Role of Interlocking Directorates in the Scientific Relationships between Universities and the Corporate Sector

References

• Arabie, P., & Hubert, L. J. (1992). Combinatorial data analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 169–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of American Medical Colleges—Association of American Universities. (2008). Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: Accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subjects research. Retrieved from http://www.aau.edu/publications/reports.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Association of American Universities. (2001). Task Force on Research Accountability. Report of individual and institutional conflict of interest. Washington, DC: AAU.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, E. E. (2008). International analysis of institutional review boards registered with the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3 (4), 49–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastedo, M. N. (2009a). Conflicts, commitments, and cliques in the university: Moral seduction as a threat to trustee independence. American Educational Research Journal, 46 (2), 354–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastedo, M. N. (2009b). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and governing board activism. The Review of Higher Education, 32 (2), 209–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, H. P. (1947). Men who control our universities: The economic and social composition of governing boards of thirty leading American universities. New York: King's Crown Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of American Medical Association, 289 (4), 454–465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (1983). Corporate profits and cooptation. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Ehringhaus, S., Rao, S. R., Moy, B., Feibelmann, S., & Goold, S. D. (2007). Institutional academic-industry relationships. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298 (15), 1779–1786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Vogeli, C., Clarridge, B. R., Abraham, M., Marder, J. E., & Koski, G. (2006). Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 355 (22), 2321–2329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chait, R., Holland, T. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1991). The effective board of trustees. Phoenix: American Council on Education & the Oryx Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A., & Drummond, R. (2000). Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at U.S. universities. Journal of American Medical Association, 284 (17), 2203–2208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.). The new institutional and organizational analysis (pp. 3–14). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Domhoff, G. W., & Dye, T. R. (1987). Power elites and organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Dye, T. R. (1989). Who's running America? The Bush era (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Dye, T. R. (1994). Who's running America? The Clinton years (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Dye, T. R. (2002). Who's running America? The Bush restoration (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Friedkin, N. E., & Thomas, S. L. (1997). Social positions in schooling. Sociology of Education, 70 (4), 239–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gale, R. L. (1993). Selecting, orienting and developing trustees. In R. T. Ingram & Associates (Eds.), Governing independent colleges and universities: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and other campus leaders (pp. 287–301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, R. (2004). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, R., & Sa, C. (2009). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, N. P., & Finkelstein, J. H. (2001). Academics on board: University presidents as corporate directors. Academe, 87 (5), 33–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haunschild, P. M., & Beckman, C. M. (1998). When do interlocks matter? Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4), 815–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hearn, J. C., & Lacy, T. A. (2009). Governmental policy and the organization of postsecondary education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 942–957). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, B., Green, M. F., & Eckel, P. (2001). On Change IV: What governing boards need to know and do about institutional change. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, J. (2010) Educational endowments and the financial crisis: Social costs and systemic risks in the shadow banking system. A case study of six New England Schools. Boston, MA: Center for Social Philanthropy, Tellus Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, R. T. (1995). Effective trusteeship: A guide for board members of independent colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G. A., & Skolnik, M. L. (1997). Governing boards in Canadian universities. Review of Higher Education, 20 (3), 277–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: The Association of Governing Boards.
   Google Scholar
• Kezar, A. (2006). Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (6), 968–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirp, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leibowitz, M. L., Bova, A., & Hammond, P. B. (2010). The endowment model of investing: Return, risk and diversification. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, J., Schoar, A., & Wang, J. (2008). Secrets of the academy: Drivers of university endowment success. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (3), 207–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53 (6), 614–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen, H. (1997). Composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities (Occasional Paper AGB No. 37). Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52 (1), 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathies, C., & Slaughter, S. (2013). University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network. Research Policy, 42 (6-7), 1286–1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizruchi, M. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12–01).
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organization: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pozar, Z., Adrian, T., Ashcraft, A., & Boesky, H. (2010). Shadow banking (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 458, JEL classification: G20, G28, G01).
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B. (2003). Beyond Baldridge: Extending the political model of higher education organization and governance. Educational Policy, 17 (1), 121–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., (2004). Burning down the house: Politics, governance and affirmative action at the University of California. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (5), 747–775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeser, J. C., Austin, D. M., Jaros, L. M., Bickol, N. M., & McCarty, C. A. (2008). Investigating perceived institutional review board quality and function using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3 (1), 25–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research. Research Policy, 30 (3), 509–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampat, B. N., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (2011). What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health Affairs, 30 (2), 332–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. New York: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration a sociological interpretation. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, U. (1923). The goose-step: A study of American education. Pasadena: Boni.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S. (1990). The higher learning and high technology: The dynamics of higher education policy formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education, 63 (5), 583–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., Feldman, M. P., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). Policies on institutional conflict of interest at U.S. research universities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Ethics Research, 4 (3), 3–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. N. (1974). Who rules the universities? New York: Monthly Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sneath, P., & Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns, L., & Mizruchi, M. (1993). Board composition and corporate financing: The impact of financial institution representation on borrowing. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), 603–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suresh, S. (2011, July 28). Talking points on the National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps to strengthen the impact of scientific discoveries. Washington, DC. NSF.gov.
   Google Scholar
• Toole, A. A. (2012). The impact of basic public research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 41 (1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Useem, M. (1984). The Inner Circle. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van McCrary, S., Anderson, C. B., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., Mccullough, L. B., Wray, N. P., & Brody, B. A. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 343 (22), 1621–1626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varma, R., & Worthington, R. (1995). Immiseration of industrial scientists in corporate laboratories in the United States. Minerva, 33 (4), 325–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veblen, T. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. New York: B. W. Huebsch.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weissman, J. S., Koski, G., Vogeli, C., Thiessen, C., & Campbell, E. G. (2008). Opinions of IRB members and chairs regarding investigators' relationships with industry. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3 (1), 3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, L., Catania, J. A., Dolcini, M. M., Pollack, L. M., & Lo, B. (2008). IRB chairs' perspectives on genomics research involving stored biological materials: Ethical concerns and proposed solutions. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3 (4), 99–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajac, E. (1988). Interlocking directorates as an interorganizational strategy: A test of critical assumptions. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (2), 428–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. (2010). 'nstitutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (2), 189–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar