A model of institutional network dynamics and a comparative case analysis of information technology transfer

This paper examines the institutional network dynamics of information technology transfer with particular emphasis on the roles of publicly-funded centers for research and development at the national and regional policy-making levels. The conceptual model serves as a basis for qualitative case analysis and comparison of research management structures in two Canadian research centers located in Quebec Province. Conclusions are formulated regarding the complementarity of program and project dominant structures as well as the comparison of hierarchies and markets as technology transfer control mechanisms. Program dominant management appears appropriate to development of national innovation infrastructures, while project dominant management facilitates problem solving in regional innovation networks. The consequences of these conclusions for research management in global technological markets are discussed. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The names of the research centers under study have been changed.     

The State of American Federalism, 1992-1993

In terms of federalism, the year 1992-1993 was interesting inits ambivalence. The new president and a somewhat reconstitutedCongress took actions that reverberated through the intergovernmentalsystem; yet there was no hint of a coherent theory of federalismunderlying those actions. Two trends held steady: the federaldeficit continued to constrain new domestic initiatives andstates and localities continued to be subjected to un(der)fundedmandates. A review of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases withintergovernmental implications, does not reveal a discerniblefederalism philosophy in that branch of the government. If anything,1992–1993 further underscored the pulling and tuggingbetween the nation and the states that has characterized Americanfederalism for the past several years.     

Reviews

Lyndall Ryan (ed.), ‘Secret Women's Business: The Hindmarsh Island Affair’, Special issue of Journal of Australian Studies (University of Queensland Press) Brisbane, no. 48, May 1996.

Gisela Kaplan, The Meagre Harvest: The Australian Women's Movement 1950s～1990s (Allen & Unwin) St Leonards, 1996.

R. Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash and Lesley Noaks (eds), Gender and Crime (University of Wales Press) Cardiff, 1995.

Deborah Oxley, Convict Maids: The Forced Migration of Women to Australia (Cambridge University Press) Melbourne, 1996.

Elizabeth Grosz and Elspeth Probyn (eds),’ Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism (Routledge), London and New York, 1995.     

Abortion: Models of responsibility

My focus within the topic of abortion is on several models that are used to support the position that a woman has a responsibility to sustain the fetus she carries because she brought about its existence. I consider the following models: a creator, strict liability, fault, and a contract. Although each of these models has been used by opponents of abortion to support the position that women should accept the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse, I argue that none of the models is adequate.This paper grew out of research begun during the 1979 Summer Seminar of the National Endowment for the Humanities led by Richard Wasserstrom. He and other participants in the Seminar contributed to my thinking then and commented later on drafts of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Society for Women in Philosophy and to colloquia at California State University, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Santa Cruz. I appreciate the good suggestions made during these discussions. I also want to thank Sharon Bishop, Donald Burrill, E. M. Curley, Barbara Herman, and Miles Morgan for their helpful comments.     

Technology transfer legislation: An overview

This article provides an overview of the Federal legislation on technology transfer beginning with the Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler acts of 1980 and ending with the 1987 Executive Order, “Facilitating Access to Science and Technology.” The legislation and Executive Order provide the context for Federal laboratory technology transfer activities. The article covers the historic development of transfer legislation, the authorities given to laboratories, incentives for technology transfer provided by legislation, and the mandated duties and responsibilities of ORTAs, organizations, and agencies.