Twin-Win Model: A human-centered approach to research success


Twin-Win Model: A human-centered approach to
research success
Ben Shneidermana,1

aDepartment of Computer Science & Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20814

Edited by William Rouse, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Pablo G. Debenedetti May 4, 2018 (received
for review February 15, 2018)

A 70-year-old simmering debate has erupted into vigorous battles
over the most effective ways to conduct research. Well-established
beliefs are being forcefully challenged by advocates of new research
models. While there can be no final resolution to this battle, this
paper offers the Twin-Win Model to guide teams of researchers,
academic leaders, business managers, and government funding
policymakers. The Twin-Win Model favors a problem-oriented
approach to research, which encourages formation of teams to
pursue the dual goals of breakthrough theories in published papers
and validated solutions that are ready for widespread dissemination.
The raised expectations of simultaneously pursuing foundational
discoveries and powerful innovations are a step beyond traditional
approaches that advocate basic research first. Evidence from citation
analysis and researcher interviews suggests that simultaneous
pursuit of both goals raises the chance of twin-win success.

research model | basic research | applied research | Twin-Win Model |
human-centered research

The usually quiet world of academic research is being awak-ened by explosive battles over how to do research (1–4). The
traditional linear model of research argued for curiosity-driven
basic research in laboratories to acquire new knowledge. This may
have been productive in the knowledge-poor early days of dis-
covery, but now, in our knowledge-rich, information-overloaded
world, new models are needed. Since collecting new knowledge
has become so easy, researchers need to consider which forms of
new knowledge would be most beneficial. Collecting the length of
every rat’s tail or the number of characters in every tweet would
add to the store of knowledge. However, it seems clear that col-
lecting the location of every rat to understand the spread of dis-
ease or the time stamp of every tweet to understand sleep patterns
in different cities would be more helpful in raising further ques-
tions and useful in recommending constructive actions.
In short, some knowledge is likely to be more useful than

others, because the knowledge relates to meaningful problems
and may suggest constructive actions. Knowledge is tied to
meaningful problems by way of a causal theory that permits in-
tervention so as to contribute to improvements in human life or
environmental preservation. Therefore, my claim is that research
can become more productive if the pursuit of new knowledge is
tied to actionable insights that can lead to societal benefits and
sustainable conservation.
Leading organizations have identified key challenges, such as the

17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations or the 14
Grand Challenges of the US National Academy of Engineering.
Common challenges include healthcare delivery, clean air and
water, smart cities, improved education, and energy availability.
While most academics support the idea of responding to these

challenges by collecting new knowledge that is tied to actionable
insights, too often researchers fail to structure their research
plans in ways that are likely to lead to the dual successes of new
knowledge and societal benefits. The Twin-Win Model (Fig. 1)
favors a problem-oriented approach to research, which encour-
ages formation of teams between academics and professionals to
pursue the dual goals of breakthrough theories in published

papers and validated solutions that are ready for widespread
dissemination.

Background
The idea of bringing academic researchers in closer contact with
professionals who face authentic problems has long been discussed
as a way to achieve higher societal benefits. The famed American
poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson spoke in 1837 about
academics working more closely with farmers, business people,
and government. Emerson called for academics to engage in the
real world: “Action . . . is essential . . . Without it, thought can
never ripen into truth.” That encouragement remains valid today.
More than a century later, Vannevar Bush’s (5) 1945 manifesto

Science: The Endless Frontier, a Report to the President on a Program
for Postwar Scientific Research sought to separate academic work
from practical problems. He argued for a linear model, suggesting
that basic research came first, which led to applied research and
then commercial development. The linear model was vigorously
opposed by Tom Allen (6) in the 1970s, Deborah Shapley and
Rustum Roy (7) in the 1980s, and many others. An important
contribution was Donald Stokes’ (8) 1997 book Pasteur’s Quadrant:
Basic Science and Technological Innovation, which proposed a fresh
strategy: “use-inspired basic research.” His reference to Pasteur
reminded readers about Pasteur’s work on the problems of vintners
and dairy farmers, which produced the twin-win of solutions to
their problems and the germ theory of disease. Lewis Branscomb’s
(9) 2007 essay supported the idea that creativity and utility (basic
and applied) research were happy partners. Steven Chu, Nobel
Prize winner in physics and US Secretary of Energy, reinforced the
need for a shift in research: “We seek solutions. We don’t seek—
dare I say this—just scientific papers anymore.”
In the past few years, The New ABCs of Research: Achieving

Breakthrough Collaborations (10), which advocated for “applied
and basic combined (ABC),” was joined by Narayanamurti and
Odumosu’s (2) book on Cycles of Invention and Discovery: Re-
thinking the Endless Frontier. Dan Sarewitz (3) wrote a powerful
essay on “Saving science,” pushing for reform of science to in-
crease its impact, while reducing the prevalence of results that
could not be replicated. Sarewitz (3) stressed that “scientists
must come out of the lab and into the real world.” A similar call
for emphasizing applications as the path to discoveries came

This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, “Modeling and Visualizing Science and Technology Developments,” held Decem-
ber 4–5, 2017, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of
Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete program and video recordings of
most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/modeling_
and_visualizing.

Author contributions: B.S. designed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. W.R. is a guest editor invited by the
Editorial Board.

Published under the PNAS license.
1Email: ben@cs.umd.edu.

Published online December 10, 2018.

12590–12594 | PNAS | December 11, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 50 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115

D
o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 a

t 
C

a
rn

e
g
ie

 M
e
llo

n
 U

n
iv

e
rs

ity
 o

n
 A

p
ri
l 5

, 
2
0
2
1
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1073/pnas.1802918115&domain=pdf
http://www.nasonline.org/modeling_and_visualizing
http://www.nasonline.org/modeling_and_visualizing
https://www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml
mailto:ben@cs.umd.edu
https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115


from a group of information visualization researchers who called
on their colleagues to “apply or die” (4).
Leading organizations have also called for reforms to academic

practice in major reports. They have invoked many terms to de-
scribe their variations on the theme of blending applied and basic
research through interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, multidisciplin-
ary, and transdisciplinary approaches (11). The National Research
Council called for convergence (12), and later, the National Acad-
emy of Engineering (13) offered a variation on convergence as part
of their engineering research centers program to “ensure that the
teams work in concert to maximize the value created for society.” A
word of caution: I do not think that interdisciplinary or convergent
ideas are sufficient to achieve the goal of high research impact. Such
approaches may be helpful, but a vital component is that researchers
need to work with professionals who have authentic problems,
which allows for validation of proposed theories and solutions.
The importance of developing the strategies for team formation

and management was presented very effectively in a thoughtful,
well-documented, and highly readable report on Enhancing the
Effectiveness of Team Science (14). Another valuable source was
Google’s report on its hybrid model of research, which described
the benefits of working on authentic problems as a path to better
theories and deeper understanding (15, 16). Academics working
with business have a strong history of successes (17), but there
clearly have been problems in working with business, which have
led many academics to be cautious about such partnerships or
funding sources (18). A study of academic medical centers found
that patented inventions by clinical researchers were more likely to
be licensed to firms than inventions by laboratory researchers
pursuing basic science (19).
Prominent academic leaders, such as Michel M. Crow, Presi-

dent of Arizona State University, have implemented these ideas.
He has worked for more than a decade to steer his campus to
transform society by conducting “use-inspired research” that is
“socially embedded” in local, regional, and national projects (1).
Shirley Ann Jackson (20), President of Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, called for her faculty to “collaborate more effectively
with businesses and governments . . . educating our students in
multidisciplinary and collaborative thinking . . . guided by social
concerns and ethics.” Similarly, the Irish Research Council (21),
which uses the term “engaged research” to describe collabora-
tions “with community partners, rather than for them,” calls for
academic research to address societal challenges.
All of these reports are helpful in understanding the broad push

to change academic research culture, but there are those who resist
and seek to preserve current practices (22). A group of academic
leaders have been meeting to develop strategies that can work
across many campuses and disciplines. The Highly Integrative
Basic and Responsive (HIBAR) Research Alliance is partnering
with established organizations, like the National Academies of
Science, Engineering, and Medicine and the Association for Public

and Land-grant Universities (www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/
research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html).

Modeling the Research Ecosystem
Having a visual model of the research ecosystem could help re-
searchers understand how they can improve their chances of
attaining twin-win successes. The simplified model in this paper
(Fig. 2) is a refined version of the model in The New ABCs of
Research: Achieving Breakthrough Collaborations (10). This re-
fined model, which describes university components (yellow
boxes in Fig. 2) and relationships (black arrows in Fig. 2), focuses
on departments, which hire and reward faculty. In turn, the
faculty teach students and form research teams, which produce
and promote their papers. The students join the research teams,
and eventually, they may become faculty members. Outside the
universities (gray boxes in Fig. 2), the papers get submitted to
journals and conferences, and they are published by professional
societies and commercial publishers. Some papers that are de-
scribed by journalists can reach wider audiences.
The two large boxes on the bottom show the powerful role of

governments (federal, state, and local), businesses, and philanthro-
pies in funding research and the powerful benefits of collaborations
between research teams and businesses, government laboratories,
and nongovernmental organizations. These latter organizations also
hire the students as interns and full-time employees.
This simplified model fails to include many other important

actors and actions, such as state legislatures, university boards of
directors, and key university officials, such as presidents and
provosts. However, it could guide thinking about interventions
that improve the efficacy of university research, such as hiring
stronger faculty, forming more effective teams, or publishing in
journals and conferences that might attract more interest from
colleagues and journalists. Richer models of universities as com-
plex enterprises could lead to further insights about how to reform
research (23, 24).

Collecting Actionable Evidence
The stream of writers mentioned in Background gave numerous
examples and arguments in support of the Twin-Win Model that
academics who collaborate with professionals to work on
meaningful problems produce higher levels of impact. This thesis
is controversial, as there is a continuing belief among many

Fig. 1. Twin-Win Model of research goals.

Fig. 2. Simplified model of the research ecosystem emphasizing the role of
collaborations with business, government laboratories, and nongovernmental
organizations. Yellow indicates campus actors and actions, while gray indicates
other actors. Labels on edges are actions. NGO, nongovernmental organization.

Shneiderman PNAS | December 11, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 50 | 12591

SO
C
IA
L
SC

IE
N
C
ES

C
O
M
P
U
TE

R
SC

IE
N
C
ES

C
O
LL
O
Q
U
IU
M

P
A
P
ER

D
o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 a

t 
C

a
rn

e
g
ie

 M
e
llo

n
 U

n
iv

e
rs

ity
 o

n
 A

p
ri
l 5

, 
2
0
2
1
 

http://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html
http://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html


researchers that their work should be devoted to laboratory
studies and focused on their theories. These researchers do not
seek out partners in business, government, or nongovernmental
agencies; in fact, they actively reject such collaborations. They
fear that working on problems brought by off-campus profes-
sionals are not interesting, too applied, or too difficult. They
fear, sometimes with good reason, that businesses are not in-
terested in serious research that would lead to respected pub-
lications, seek to control the intellectual property, or use
academic credibility only to achieve corporate goals. In short,
academics do not want to “dirty their hands” by working on real
problems, sometimes making explicit statements that applica-
tions and policy issues are not appropriate concerns for
researchers.
There are certainly dangers, but a growing number of academics

have come to understand that there are great opportunities in
working with businesses, governments, and nongovernmental or-
ganizations to pursue twin-win successes. Many universities have
recognized the power of such partnerships and actively seek them
out by forming partnerships with individual businesses or creating
consortia of businesses to support a laboratory working on a
problem or widespread interest. Academic leaders and faculty are
discovering that joining in government, industry, and university
Centers of Excellence brings together diverse researchers with
stable funding to work on substantive problems. Recognizing the
efficacy of larger teams, the US National Science Foundation has
launched 12 Science and Technology Centers in the past decade
to support “integrative partnerships” (https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/
programs/stc/).
While National Science Foundation and American Associa-

tion for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reports docu-
mented the efficacy of larger centers, I wanted to understand the
benefits to individual faculty members of working with profes-
sionals. Fresh data up to and including 2016 from the Elsevier
SCOPUS database, which holds the metadata on 70 million
published papers, provided evidence about the impact of papers
written by my University of Maryland colleagues. The results
were striking: single authored papers produced, on average, 3.0
citations, while collaborations among University of Maryland
faculty averaged 6.1 citations. When my colleagues collaborated
with faculty at other US universities, they averaged 9.2 citations,

while collaborations with international faculty raised the average
to 13.9. However, the remarkable result was that coauthoring
with colleagues in businesses or organizations, such as the World
Bank, resulted in a dramatically higher citation count of 20.3.
This pattern proved to be common at other universities with

strong research programs. Figs. 3 and 4 show the SCOPUS data
for the leading private and public universities (as determined by
research output). They show similar patterns of substantially
higher impact when papers include corporate coauthors.
More extensive analysis is needed to verify this strong benefit

of having corporate coauthors. A confounding factor may be that
many projects that bring academics in contact with domain ex-
perts who have meaningful problems in businesses, government,
or nongovernmental organizations do not list the domain experts
as a coauthor. These domain experts could be involved in the
research, but they may not become coauthors. Another important
category of collaborations might be with academics in other
disciplines who draw on the skills of their colleagues. This form of
interdisciplinary research is driven by the need to solve a clear
and meaningful problem.
Whatever the source of the collaboration that applies aca-

demic skills to a meaningful problem, a deeper understanding of
the processes that enable such collaboration would be helpful.
The Elsevier SciVal tool permits drilling down to identify the
faculty who have the largest number of papers with corporate
coauthors. By limiting the search to the computer science field, I
identified which colleagues in my University of Maryland De-
partment of Computer Science had the largest number of papers
with corporate coauthors in the past 5 y. The top person, who
had 22 such papers during 2012–2016, was a complete surprise,
because I knew him to be a strong theory researcher working in
algorithmic game theory. In an interview, he confirmed that he
liked to work with corporate partners, because “they had better
problems.” He invited corporate collaborators to visit and speak
with his students on campus and sent his students to do intern-
ships, which often led to full-time job offers. He described long-
term durable relationships, which led to coauthorship of papers.
The next most prolific producer of papers with corporate coau-
thors had 12 such papers in computer vision. He reported similar
patterns of eagerly working with businesses, sometimes funded
by government agencies, because the problems challenged his

Fig. 3. Top six US private universities show similar patterns of increased citation impact when there are corporate coauthors. Data cover 2012–2016. MIT,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; U Penn, University of Pennsylvania.

12592 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115 Shneiderman

D
o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 a

t 
C

a
rn

e
g
ie

 M
e
llo

n
 U

n
iv

e
rs

ity
 o

n
 A

p
ri
l 5

, 
2
0
2
1
 

https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/
https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/
https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115


group and led to strong papers. Four other faculty had fewer
collaborations with business partners but spoke of their positive
experiences in building and maintaining collaborations with off-
campus partners.
The journey of working with businesses takes an open mind and

some effort. Sometimes, it begins with a contact (email or phone)
from a corporate researcher who is interested in a faculty mem-
ber’s research. This can lead to invitations to speak or consult for
the corporation or invitations for the corporate researcher to
speak on campus. Other corporate connections come from stu-
dents who intern or go to work for a corporate research labora-
tory. These students may still be finishing work that they began on
campus, and later, they may build on their campus connections for
new lines of work. However, another path to corporate connec-
tions is by way of direct corporate funding of academic research
through unrestricted gifts or contracts.
Government funding, which requires university–industry collab-

oration, can also establish collaborations that endure, such as the
US National Science Foundation’s Industry-University Cooperative
Research Centers (https://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/iucrc/home.jsp) and
the US National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (https://
www.manufacturing.gov/). Other integrative research centers, such
as the Science and Technology Centers (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5502) and Engineering Research Centers
(https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/), provide further opportu-
nities for productive collaborations.
The University-Industry Demonstration Partnerships (https://

www.uidp.org) is one of many organizations with the goal to
promote collaborations by supporting “mutually beneficial
university-industry collaborations by developing and disseminat-
ing strategies for addressing common issues between the two
sectors.” The University-Industry Demonstration Partnerships
grew out of an initiative of the National Academies Government-
University-Industry Research Roundtable. Another organization
is HIBAR Research Alliance (www.aplu.org/projects-and-initia-
tives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html), which is
pursuing strategies for campus culture change to promote closer
collaborations with government, business, and nongovernmental
organizations. Lorne Whitehead of the University of British
Columbia offered this description: “HIBAR specializes in pro-
jects that

Seek both deep new knowledge and new practical solutions

Use both academic research methods and practical design
thinking

Are led by both respected academics and real-world experts.”

Additional evidence of the potency of seeking twin-win suc-
cesses comes from a recent study of the relationship between re-
search papers and patents (25). This study found that patents
often cited academic papers, but more importantly, academic
papers that are cited by patents get greater attention in the re-
search community: “papers directly cited by patents were also the
highest-impact papers within the scientific domain” (25). The
business benefits of close connection with research were also
found: “Patented inventions that draw directly on scientific ad-
vances were especially impactful compared to other patents” (25).
The focus of this paper has been the benefits to academics of

working with business coauthors. Another question is whether there
is benefit to business professionals in working with academics. An
exploration in the SCOPUS data for the data from 12 large cor-
porations during 2012–2016 found that the average citation count
for papers with academic coauthors was 11.7 (SD 4.9), while for
papers without academic coauthors, the average citation count was
6.3 (SD 4.0). Of these 12 companies (Agilent Technologies, Bayer,
Boeing, Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Google, Huawei, IBM,
Medtronic, Oracle, Sony, Waters Corporation), 11 had higher ci-
tation counts for the papers with academic coauthors, but 1 com-
pany, Google, had higher citation counts in papers without
academic coauthors. Their current and previous directors of re-
search conjecture that Google’s highly cited system design papers
describing implemented systems are largely written by Google
employees, while papers coauthored with academics are more
theoretical or early research. While this result needs further ex-
ploration and confirmation, it adds to the evidence that working on
realistic problems and the diversity brought by intersectoral col-
laborations strengthens researchers who are seeking the twin-win
success of published papers and validated solutions (ref. 10, p. 175).

Conclusion
There are many paths to twin-win research success, but working
on authentic problems with partners who care about the solu-
tions seems important. This article stresses partnerships between

Fig. 4. Top six US public universities show similar patterns of increased citation impact when there are corporate coauthors. Data cover 2012–2016. UCLA,
University of California, Los Angeles; UC San Diego, University of California, San Diego.

Shneiderman PNAS | December 11, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 50 | 12593

SO
C
IA
L
SC

IE
N
C
ES

C
O
M
P
U
TE

R
SC

IE
N
C
ES

C
O
LL
O
Q
U
IU
M

P
A
P
ER

D
o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 a

t 
C

a
rn

e
g
ie

 M
e
llo

n
 U

n
iv

e
rs

ity
 o

n
 A

p
ri
l 5

, 
2
0
2
1
 

https://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/iucrc/home.jsp
https://www.manufacturing.gov/
https://www.manufacturing.gov/
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5502
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5502
https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/
https://www.uidp.org
https://www.uidp.org
http://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html
http://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/index.html


academics and businesses, but there may be utility for academics
with strong research methods, such as software, statistics, or
surveys, to work with academic colleagues in other disciplines
who have strong research problems. The widely held belief in the
benefits of interdisciplinary research may stem from situations
where academics with strong research methods work with col-
leagues with strong research problems.
In summary, there is growing evidence that, when academics

work with partners in business, they address authentic problems
that challenge the research team to produce more potent solu-
tions. Such partnerships often have access to more resources
(money, staff, data, etc.), enabling them to take on more sub-
stantive problems, although they may be working with greater
time pressures than in academic projects. The authentic setting
for these problems means that there is often potent feedback
that guides reconsideration of goals and methods. The stakes are
higher in authentic settings, since a validated solution can have
large payoffs.

While these conclusions need refinement and verification, the
takeaway lessons for academic researchers seeking twin-win
success include

Build long-term relationships with professionals in business
and government research laboratories,

Seek funding to work on problems that businesses and govern-
ments find relevant, and

Encourage your students to do internships at business and
government research laboratories.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I appreciated the support from the HIBAR Research
Alliance, especially Lorne Whitehead and Dan Sarewitz, and my University of
Maryland colleagues Linda Aldoory and Scott Dempwolf. I also thank Katy
Borner, Michelle Gittelman, Benjamin Jones, Stasa Milojevic, Peter Norvig,
Markus Perkmann, Gavriel Salvendy, and Alfred Spector, who have made
helpful comments on the draft. Asheq Rahman of Elsevier collaborated
productively and generously in doing the SCOPUS analyses using SciVal.

1. Crow MM, Dabars WB (2015) Designing the New American University (Johns Hopkins
Univ Press, Baltimore).

2. Narayanamurti V, Odumosu T (2016) Cycles of Invention and Discovery: Rethinking
the Endless Frontier (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).

3. Sarewitz D (2016) Saving science. New Atlantis 49:4–40.
4. Weber GH, et al. (2017) Apply or die: On the role and assessment of application pa-

pers in visualization. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 38:96–104.
5. Bush V (1945) Science: The Endless Frontier, a Report to the President on a Program

for Postwar Scientific Research (Office of Scientific Research and Development,
Washington, DC).

6. Allen TJ (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the
Dissemination of Technological Information within the R & D Organization (MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA).

7. Shapley D, Roy R (1985) Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift
(ISI, Philadelphia).

8. Stokes D (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation
(Brookings Institution, Washington, DC).

9. Branscomb L (2007) The false dichotomy: Scientific creativity and utility. Issues Sci
Technol 16:1.

10. Shneiderman B (2016) The New ABCs of Research: Achieving Breakthrough
Collaborations (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).

11. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2013) ARISE2: Advancing Research in Science
and Engineering (Unleashing America’s Research & Innovation Enterprise, Cam-
bridge, MA).

12. National Research Council (2014) Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary
Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond (National
Academies, Washington, DC).

13. National Academy of Engineering (2017) Committee on a vision for the future of
center-based multidisciplinary engineering research. A New Vision for Center-Based
Engineering Research (National Academies, Washington, DC).

14. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, eds (2015) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (Na-
tional Academies, Washington, DC).

15. Perkmann M, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of
the literature on university–Industry relations. Res Policy 42:423–442.

16. Spector A, Norvig P, Petrov S (2012) Google’s hybrid approach to research. Commun
ACM 55:34–37.

17. Rosenberg N, Nelson RR (1994) American universities and technical advance in in-
dustry. Res Policy 23:323–348.

18. Tartari V, Perkmann M, Salter A (2014) In good company: The influence of peers on
industry engagement by academic scientists. Res Policy 43:1189–1203.

19. Ali A, Gittelman M (2016) Research paradigms and useful inventions in medicine:
Patents and licensing by teams of clinical and basic scientists in Academic Medical
Centers. Res Policy 45:1499–1511.

20. Jackson SA (September 22, 2014) Op-ed: The new polytechnic: Preparing to lead in
the digital economy. US News and World Report. Available at https://www.usnews.
com/news/college-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/09/22/op-ed-the-new-polytechnic-
preparing-to-lead-in-the-digital-economy. Accessed June 5, 2018.

21. Irish Research Council (2016) Engaged Research: Society & Higher Education
Addressing Grand Societal Challenges Together (Irish Research Council, Dublin).

22. Shneiderman B (2018) Rock the Research: Your Guidebook for Accelerating Campus
Discovery and Innovation.

23. Rouse WB (2016) Universities as Complex Enterprises: How Academia Works, Why It
Works These Ways, and Where the University Enterprise Is Headed (Wiley, Hoboken,
NJ).

24. Rouse W, Lombardi JV, Craig DD (2018) The future of the higher education enterprise:
Research universities today and tomorrow, a computational approach. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA, in press.

25. Ahmadpoor M, Jones BF (2017) The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior
scientific advance. Science 357:583–587.

12594 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115 Shneiderman

D
o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 a

t 
C

a
rn

e
g
ie

 M
e
llo

n
 U

n
iv

e
rs

ity
 o

n
 A

p
ri
l 5

, 
2
0
2
1
 

https://www.usnews.com/news/college-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/09/22/op-ed-the-new-polytechnic-preparing-to-lead-in-the-digital-economy
https://www.usnews.com/news/college-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/09/22/op-ed-the-new-polytechnic-preparing-to-lead-in-the-digital-economy
https://www.usnews.com/news/college-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/09/22/op-ed-the-new-polytechnic-preparing-to-lead-in-the-digital-economy
https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1802918115