@article{leonchuk_gray_2019, title={Scientific and technological (human) social capital formation and Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers: a quasi-experimental evaluation of graduate student outcomes}, volume={44}, ISSN={["1573-7047"]}, DOI={10.1007/s10961-017-9613-9}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER}, author={Leonchuk, Olena and Gray, Denis O.}, year={2019}, month={Oct}, pages={1638–1664} }
 @article{rideout_gray_2013, title={Does Entrepreneurship Education Really Work? A Review and Methodological Critique of the Empirical Literature on the Effects of University-Based Entrepreneurship Education}, volume={51}, ISSN={["1540-627X"]}, DOI={10.1111/jsbm.12021}, abstractNote={Does entrepreneurship education (E‐ed) really work to create business enterprise? We conducted a comprehensive review and methodological critique of the empirical research on the outcomes of university‐based E‐ed. We identified every empirical study conducted over the past decade, and found 12 that minimally met our methodologically “robust” (Storey Steps 4–6) standard. Our systematic critique of the studies' research methods found a variety of methodological weaknesses, undermining confidence in the belief that E‐ed can produce entrepreneurship. The implications for both practice and policy are discussed, and recommendations are made for conducting future E‐ed outcome research.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT}, author={Rideout, Elaine C. and Gray, Denis O.}, year={2013}, month={Jul}, pages={329–351} }
 @article{gray_2011, title={Cross-sector research collaboration in the USA: A national innovation system perspective}, volume={38}, DOI={10.3152/030234211x12960315267417}, abstractNote={This article uses a conceptual framework drawn from a national innovation systems (NIS) perspective to examine cross-sector research collaboration (CSRC) in the USA. The article describes how CSRC happens, how this relates to critical historical and public policy elements of the US NIS and examines how effective this approach has been. In the USA, CSRC is a product of both historical factors and the evolving system of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy that has its roots in both the federal and state/local levels of government. These forces and other social and economic factors have resulted in a diverse collection of both informal and formal linkage mechanisms. Implications for US public policy and other NIS are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.}, number={2}, journal={Science and Public Policy}, author={Gray, D. O.}, year={2011}, pages={123–133} }
 @article{coberly_gray_2010, title={Cooperative research centers and faculty satisfaction: a multi-level predictive analysis}, volume={35}, ISSN={["1573-7047"]}, DOI={10.1007/s10961-010-9159-6}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER}, author={Coberly, Beth M. and Gray, Denis O.}, year={2010}, month={Oct}, pages={547–565} }
 @article{boardman_gray_2010, title={The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations}, volume={35}, ISSN={["1573-7047"]}, DOI={10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER}, author={Boardman, Craig and Gray, Denis}, year={2010}, month={Oct}, pages={445–459} }
 @article{toker_gray_2008, title={Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in US university research centers}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1873-7625"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.006}, abstractNote={This paper reports findings of a study designed to test whether differences in spatial layout of research offices and labs (workspace planning) affects face-to-face technical consultations, and ultimately innovation process outcomes in research settings critical to government supported innovation strategies—university research centers (URCs). The study involved a mixed-method (multivariate predictive and multiple case comparison) evaluation of six organizationally similar but spatially different URCs. Data analysis revealed relationships between workspace planning, consultations and innovation process outcomes. Multivariate analyses showed that configurational accessibility, visibility and walking distances significantly affect the frequencies and locations of unprogrammed face-to-face consultations. Cross-case comparisons revealed that URCs featuring overall high configurational accessibility, shorter walking distances and intact territories exhibit higher face-to-face consultation rates, consultation network connectivity, and subjective/objective innovation process outcomes. Implications for research policy, practice and research are discussed.}, number={2}, journal={RESEARCH POLICY}, author={Toker, Umut and Gray, Denis O.}, year={2008}, month={Mar}, pages={309–329} }
 @article{emshoff_blakely_gray_jakes_brounstein_coulter_gardner_2003, title={An ESID case study at the federal level}, volume={32}, ISSN={["0091-0562"]}, DOI={10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004753.88247.0d}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3-4}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Emshoff, J and Blakely, C and Gray, D and Jakes, S and Brounstein, P and Coulter, J and Gardner, S}, year={2003}, month={Dec}, pages={345–357} }
 @article{gray_jakes_emshoff_blakely_2003, title={ESID, dissemination, and community psychology: A case of partial implementation?}, volume={32}, ISSN={["1573-2770"]}, DOI={10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004754.37080.57}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3-4}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Gray, DO and Jakes, SS and Emshoff, J and Blakely, C}, year={2003}, month={Dec}, pages={359–370} }
 @article{gray_steenhuis_2003, title={Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance}, volume={58}, ISSN={["1588-2861"]}, DOI={10.1023/A:1026236626942}, number={2}, journal={SCIENTOMETRICS}, author={Gray, DO and Steenhuis, HJ}, year={2003}, month={Oct}, pages={281–300} }
 @article{behrens_gray_2001, title={Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome}, volume={30}, ISSN={["0048-7333"]}, DOI={10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00112-2}, abstractNote={The research policy community has produced a significant body of empirical research on benefits of cooperative research between industry and university. However, in spite of a lively policy debate on the subject, it has all but ignored empirical study on the “costs” or unintended consequences of these activities (e.g., erosion of academic freedom). In fact, only four empirical articles assessing various “costs” were found in the literature. The current study attempted to inform the debate about benefits vs. costs of cooperative research by examining the impact of source of funding (industry, government and no external sponsor) and form of funding (single source, consortial, or unfunded) on a variety of research processes and outcomes for a particularly vulnerable population — graduate students; it also involved the development and evaluation of a measure of “climate for academic freedom”. The study used a purposive stratified sample of graduate students from the same two engineering departments at six US universities (N=482). Although some minor differences were found, the results failed to support claims that sponsorship by industry negatively affect student experiences or outcomes. Consistent with the predictions of some observers, the most striking differences were observed between sponsored projects and projects with no external sponsor. Exploratory analyses identified several variables that do explain differences in perceived “climate for academic freedom”. Implications of these findings for research policy and future research on unintended consequences are discussed.}, number={2}, journal={RESEARCH POLICY}, author={Behrens, TR and Gray, DO}, year={2001}, month={Feb}, pages={179–199} }
 @article{gray_2000, title={Government-sponsored industry-university cooperative research: an analysis of cooperative research center evaluation approaches}, volume={9}, ISSN={["0958-2029"]}, DOI={10.3152/147154400781777377}, abstractNote={Ex-ante, interim and outcome evaluation approaches used at the program, center and project-level of analysis for four separate co-operative research center initiatives are examined. Center initiatives have received much evaluative scrutiny since 1980, particularly interim and outcome assessments. The modified peer-review technique has most use. The strengths and weaknesses of novel approaches and their applicability to more traditional research funding schemes are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.}, number={1}, journal={RESEARCH EVALUATION}, author={Gray, DO}, year={2000}, month={Apr}, pages={57–67} }
 @book{tornatzky_waugaman_gray_1999, title={Industry-university technology transfer: Alternative models of policy, program and practice}, publisher={Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Technology Council}, author={Tornatzky, L. G. and Waugaman, P. G. and Gray, D. O.}, year={1999} }
 @article{tornatzky_lovelace_gray_geisler_1999, title={Promoting the success of Industry/University research centers: The role of leadership}, volume={13}, DOI={10.1177/095042229901300202}, abstractNote={The industry/university (I/U) research centre, once a novelty on university campuses, has become the dominant vehicle for industry's funding of academic research in the USA. While the authors' recent volume, ‘Managing the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center’, documents a variety of skills and competencies needed to build and sustain these boundary-spanning organizations, none plays a more important role in centre success than leadership. Drawing on the literature on leadership and over fifteen years of experience with and research on the National Science Foundation's Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers programme, the authors define and illustrate leadership in the context of an I/U research centre. Leadership in a cooperative research centre often involves helping constituencies to deal with adaptive challenges, situations which require learning both to define the problem and to develop and implement a solution. Since these situations usually involve constituencies with conflicting values and priorities, they are typically best resolved by a participatory leadership style. Critical leadership challenges observed in cooperative research centres are discussed, including: exercising intrapreneurship, creating a compelling technical vision, spanning organizational boundaries, creating cooperative research teams, managing a changing centre and knowing oneself.}, number={1999}, journal={Industry & Higher Education}, author={Tornatzky, L. G. and Lovelace, K. and Gray, D. O. and Geisler, E.}, year={1999}, pages={101–111} }
 @article{tornatzky_gray_tarrant_howe_1998, title={Maine's science and engineering brain drain: How much and why?}, volume={7}, number={1998}, journal={Maine Policy Review}, author={Tornatzky, L. G. and Gray, D. O. and Tarrant, S. and Howe, J.}, year={1998}, pages={44–49} }
 @book{gray_walters_fleischer_1998, title={Managing the industry/university cooperative research center: A guide for directors and other stakeholders}, ISBN={1574770535}, publisher={Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press}, author={Gray, D. O. and Walters, G. and Fleischer, M.}, year={1998} }
 @book{tornatzky_gray_tarrant_howe_1998, title={Where have all the students gone?: Interstate migration of recent science and engineering graduates, a benchmarking report}, publisher={Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Technology Council}, author={Tornatzky, L. G. and Gray, D. O. and Tarrant, S. and Howe, J.}, year={1998} }