組織在制度環境中不僅受到制度環境的規範與約束，同時也可能因為存在不同制度邏輯，在制度邏輯間調和或競爭作用下，影響組織對策略的關注與決策選擇。台灣的私立大學在競爭激烈且高度制度規範的高等教育市場中求取生存，來自政府與專業團體的規範與約束，提供了私立大學行為與策略發展的主要制度環境，而根據私立大學的成立基礎，台灣的私立大學大致可以區分為兩種類型－家族控制的私立大學與宗教支持的私立大學，隱含於家族控制私立大學的家族邏輯與隱含於宗教支持私立大學的宗教邏輯，二種根本性差異的組織制度邏輯，將可能影響私立大學對高等教育政策的關注與相應之策略發展。
產學合作為近年來政府推動的重要高等教育政策，私立大學建立產學合作關係不但符合社會正當性，獲得較高的社會評價與評鑑績效，同時也能夠為私立大學帶來外部資源挹注，在競爭的產業環境中獲取更多資源。台灣私立大學處於高度制度規範且競爭激烈的高等教育產業環境，將預期所有私立大學應積極推動產學合作，然而，觀察私立大學發展產學合作之情形，家族控制的私立大學與宗教支持的私立大學在產學合作的推動上卻有所差異。
本論文透過制度邏輯觀點與社會資本觀點，探討在高度制度規範的高等教育產業，家族控制的私立大學與宗教支持的私立大學，在產學合作策略上，不同組織制度邏輯的調合或衝突，會如何影響私立大學在領導人或董事會社會資本的建構與安排，進而影響私立大學在產學合作策略上的關注與決定。研究結果發現，董事長與校長的社會資本，以及董事會的組成異質性，對所有私立大學的產學合作策略有顯著正向影響。此外，家族控制的私立大學，校長的社會資本與董事會組成異質性，對其產學合作的正向影響，相較於宗教支持的私立大學有更為顯著的效果；而宗教支持的私立大學，董事長的社會資本、董事長為原宗教團體代表，以及董事會的控制不對稱性，相較於家族控制的私立大學，則對於產學合作策略有更為顯著的正向影響。
研究結果顯示，即使在高度制度規範的產業環境中，組織回應制度政策的動機與行為並不完全趨同，組織的制度邏輯具有根本與關鍵性的影響。家族控制的私立大學傾向於透過校長的社會資本與董事會的多元組成安排，建構私立大學的社會資本以爭取外部資源，而宗教支持的私立大學則傾向透過與原始創辦宗教團體之間的緊密連結，以獲得更多資源。本論文蒐集2003年至2013年台灣私立大學的產學合作資料進行分析，對於思考高度制度規範產業環境中，組織制度邏輯對於組織關注偏好與組織策略選擇的影響，提供理論與實務上具有意義的參考價值。

An organization’s behaviors and decisions in a highly regulative institutional industry were not only regulated by regulations and norms but also influenced by the indigenous institutional logics, such as those originally derived from the state, the profession, the family or the religion. Private universities in Taiwan need to compete to seize the legitimacy as well as the resources in the highly competitive and regulative education environment. Government rules and professional norms provide the possible sources of isomorphism on those public and private universities in this education environment; however, the indigenous institutional logics of private universities will demonstrate the heterogeneities on their strategies choices. According to the founding backgrounds and initiative resources, private universities in Taiwan can be classified into two types: those controlled by family or family business groups and those founded by religious organizations. Given that these universities guild by two different institutional logics, i.e., family logic and religion logic, this research argues that the different private universities that guild by the distinctive institutional logics will possibly have specific strategies choices in the highly regulated and competitive education environment.
This research employs institutional logics perspective and social capital theory to address the academia-industry collaborations (AIC) strategy issue in Taiwan and are interested to know how the indigenous institutional logics in each private university may co-act with the university’s social capital and thereby influences its inclination and strategic choices on AIC strategy. This research argues that no matter what kind of private university, the social capital of the university President and the Chairman of the Board, and the relational pluralism of the Board of Directors, will play significantly positive impact on AIC strategy.
The findings indicate that the social capital of the President and the heterogeneity of the Board of Directors will generate greater significantly positive impacts on AIC strategy in family-controlled universities than in religion-founded universities. Moreover, the social capital of the Chairman, Chairman’s identity which is tied to founding organizations, and the control asymmetry of the Board of Directors in religion-founded universities may indicate greater positive impact on AIC strategy than in family-controlled universities.
This research concludes that even private universities that are embedded in a highly regulative and competitive environment, these private universities still have distinctive strategic choice based on its indigenous institutional logics and the following attentional social ties. . The family-controlled private universities prefer to utilize the social capital of President and heterogeneity of the Board of Directors as resources on the strategies. However, the religion-founded private universities prefer to obtain resources through the social ties among their founding organizations and thereby on the strategies accordingly. This research utilizes the longitudinal data of private universities from 2003 to 2013. The evidence of this research contributes to the issues that addressing the organizational strategic choices from institutional logics and social capital viewpoint in a highly regulative environment. Additionally, this research also provides theoretical and practical insights on the organizational strategic choices that are influenced from the interwoven formal institutional pressures, the indigenous institutional logics, and the competitive pressure in the embedded environment.

論文審定書…………………………………………………… i
致謝…………………………………………………………… ii
中文摘要……………………………………………………… iii
英文摘要……………………………………………………… v
目錄…………………………………………………………… vii
圖次…………………………………………………………… ix
表次…………………………………………………………… x

第一章 導論…………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………… 1
第二節 研究問題與目的……………………………………… 5
第三節 研究範圍與流程……………………………………… 9
第四節 論文章節安排………………………………………… 11
第二章 台灣私立大學發展、法律規範與產學合作發展…… 13
第一節 私立大學之發展階段………………………………… 15
第二節 私立大學發展之法律規範…………………………… 25
第三節 評鑑制度與私立大學績效評定面向………………… 37
第四節 私立大學的財務經營………………………………… 43
第五節 私立大學之產學合作發展…………………………… 49
第三章 文獻探討與假說……………………………………… 61
第一節 制度理論與制度邏輯觀點…………………………… 63
第二節 組織的社會網絡與社會資本………………………… 75
第三節 私立大學的制度邏輯、社會資本與產學合作績效… 83
第四章 研究方法……………………………………………… 97
第一節 研究範圍與資料蒐集………………………………… 97
第二節 研究變數……………………………………………… 99
第三節 分析方法……………………………………………… 105
第五章 實證結果與分析……………………………………… 111
第一節 敘述性統計分析……………………………………… 111
第二節 相關分析與回歸分析………………………………… 117
第六章 結論與政策意涵……………………………………… 133
第一節 研究發現……………………………………………… 133
第二節 理論意涵與政策意涵………………………………… 141
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議…………………………… 155
參考文獻………………………………………………………...… 157

中小企業處（2012），《中小企業白皮書》。台北
王中天（2003），〈社會資本（Social Capital）：概念、源起、及現況〉，《問題與研究》，第42卷第5期，頁139-163。
朱敬一、葉家興（1994a），〈台灣的「私人興學」 ─ 現況檢討與政策建議（上）〉，《人本教育札記》，第58期，頁85-99。
朱敬一、葉家興（1994b），〈台灣的「私人興學」 ─ 現況檢討與政策建議（中）〉，《人本教育札記》，第59期，頁70-91.
朱敬一、葉家興（1994c），〈台灣的「私人興學」 ─ 現況檢討與政策建議（下）〉，《人本教育札記》，第59期，頁70-91.
行政院國家科學委員會，台灣經濟研究院編（2010），《2009年中華民國科學技術統計要覽》。台北。
何卓飛（2009），〈我國「國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」之策略管理與績效評估研究〉。私立淡江大學管理科學研究所，博士學位論文。
何卓飛、傅遠智（2011），〈我國高等教育跨校型技轉中心辦理情形與展望〉，《研考雙月刊》，第35卷第5期，頁128-138。
吳清山（2010），《高等教育評鑑議題研究》。台北：高等教育文化事業。
李宗榮（2007），〈在國家與家族之間：企業控制與台灣大型企業間網絡再探〉，《台灣社會學》，第13卷，頁173-242。
李宗榮（2009），〈制度變遷與市場網絡：台灣大型企業間董監事跨坐的歷史考察， 1962-2003〉，《台灣社會學》，17期，頁101-160。
李聖賢（2009），〈產學關係持續性之研究〉。私立淡江大學管理科學研究所，博士學位論文。
杜聰明（1963），〈台灣基督教會醫學史〉，《台灣醫學會雜誌》，第69卷第2號，頁541-562。
周志宏（2001），〈私人興學自由與私立學校法制〉，《輔仁學誌》，第33期，頁1-48。
周志宏（2008），〈聯合國與全球教育文化發展〉，收錄於《聯合國的體制、功能與發展》，頁301-338。台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。
周祝瑛（2003），《誰捉弄了台灣教改》。台北：心理。
周祝瑛、鄭惠娟（2010），〈台灣地區高等教育學雜費政策之探究〉，《比較教育》，第68卷，頁1-25。
周耀門（2009），〈私立學校法修正之重點探討〉，高雄醫學大學e快報，第127期，http://wp.kmu.edu.tw/schoolmag/files/2014/01/01-024.pdf。
官有垣（2000），〈非營利組織在台灣的發展：兼論政府對財團法人基金會的法令規範〉，《中國行政評論》，第10卷，頁75-108。
林本炫（2006），〈我國私立大學的設立、經營和合併問題〉，《教育與社會研究》，第10期，頁65-92。
林尚平、陳宥杉、雷漢聲、陳達仁、黃銘傑、蔡渭水、黃家齊、張克群（2009），〈行政院國科會產學合作機制之發展現況與未來建議〉，《商管科技季刊》，第10卷第1期，頁1-28。
林炎旦（1997），〈專科學校建教合作策略內涵之研究〉。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所。博士學位論文。
林南（2007），〈社會資本理論與研究簡介〉，《社會科學論叢》，頁1-32。
林清和（1994），〈產學合作之特色〉，《技職雙月刊》，第23期，頁32-35。
秦夢群、陳遵行（2012），〈台灣高等教育評鑑制度與實施之分析研究〉，《教育資料與研究》，第106期，頁105-142。
高教司（2005），〈大學學雜費的國際比較〉，《高教簡訊》，174期，頁4-5。
康自立（1985），《建教合作原理》。台北：全華書局。
張國保（2003），〈私立大學董事會組織運作與職權效能之研究〉，國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士學位論文，台北。
教育部（2001），《大學教育的現況與前瞻》。台北。
教育部（2001），《大學教育政策白皮書》。台北。
教育部統計處，2014，參考日期：2014年3月20日，http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/。
許瓊文、張保隆（2013），〈以動態能力觀點探討產學研發合作行為〉，《管理與系統》，第20卷第1期，頁1-26。
陳舜芬（1993），《高等教育研究論文集》。台北：師大書苑。
陳德華（2007），〈台灣高等教育過去20年數量的擴充與結構的改變〉，《高等教育》，第2卷第2期，頁67-96。
湯堯、成群豪（2010），《高等教育經營》。台北：高等教育文化事業。
黃心台（2009），《計量經濟學》。台北：新陸書局。
黃炳欽、張國保（2007），〈教育部推動產學合作現況與發展方向〉，《人文社會科學研究》，第1卷第1期，頁1-19。
楊朝祥（2009），〈台灣高等教育的挑戰、超越與卓越〉，《教育資料集刊》，第44卷，頁1-28。
楊瑩（2008），〈台灣高等教育政策改革與發展〉，《研習資訊》，第25卷6期，頁21-56。
溫明麗（2016），〈私立大學董事會的責任與紋理－捐資乎？投資乎？〉，《台灣教育評論月刊》，第5卷1期，頁8-15。
溫肇東、樊學良（2013），〈日本產學合作之理論研究及政策實踐歷程〉，《管理與系統》，第20卷2期，頁201-226。
葛孟堯、劉江彬、耿筠（2010），〈影響我國大學技術移轉績效因素之研究〉，《科技管理學刊》，第15卷第2期，頁55-82。
劉兆玄（2008），〈對振興文化、教育與科技—教育及科技部份報告的提示〉。2008年9月4日，擷取自行政院全球資訊網http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content2.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9491FC830&sms=99606AC2FCD53A3A&s=C2DF3186D6785471。
蕭介夫、蕭宏金（2012），〈邁向具特色的國際級大學策略〉，《評鑑雙月刊》，第39期，擷取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/09/01/5860.aspx。
鍾喜梅、葉家豪（2010），〈家族連結、政商關係與多角化擴張：台灣家族企業集團的跨時分析〉，《組織與管理》第3卷第1期，頁67-106。
鍾喜梅、鄭力軒、詹淑婷、林佳慧（2012），〈醫院與大學在家族企業集團股權鏈之角色：制度與資源依賴觀點的辯證〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，第24卷第3期，頁399-438。
簡禎富、彭金堂、許嘉裕（2013），〈產學合作模式之研究-以科學工業園區固本精進產學合作計畫為例〉，《管理與系統》，第20卷第1期，頁27-54。
Anthony, D. L., Appari, A., and Johnson, M. E. (2014). Institutionalizing HIPAA Compliance Organizations and Competing Logics in US Health Care. Journal of health and social behavior, 55(1): 108-124.
Bae, Z.T. and Park, S. (2008). University Technology Commercialization and Academic Entrepreneurship in Korea. In 2nd Workshop for SPF funded Project, 21st-22nd February 2008.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1): 99-120.
Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T., and Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic management journal, 21(3): 267-294.
Beck, N., and Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 271-293.
Becker, W., and Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research policy, 33(2): 209-223.
Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, Entrepreneurs and Institutional Change: The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5): 777-799.
Beckman, C. M., and Haunschild, P. R. (2002). Network learning: The effects of partners' heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative science quarterly, 47(1): 92-124.
Beckman, C. M., Schoonhoven, C. B., Rottner, R. M., and Kim, S.-J. (2014). Relational pluralism in de novo organizations: Boards of directors as bridges or barriers to diverse alliance portfolios? Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 460-483.
Benson, J. K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative science quarterly, 229-249.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3): 258-279.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
Bloedon, R.V. and Stoke, D. R. (1994). Making university-industry collaborative research succeed. Research Technology Management, 37(2): 44-49.
Borgatti, S. P., and Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of management, 29(6): 991-1013.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital.(1986). Cultural theory: An anthology, 81-93.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational behavior, 22: 345-423.
Carpenter, M. A., and Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 639-660.
Casciaro, T. and Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative science quarterly, 50(2): 167-199.
Cheng, M.Y. (2008).University Technology Transfer and Commercialization: The Case of Multimedia University,Malaysia. 2nd workshop for SPF funded Project, 21st-22nd February 2008.
Chung, H. M. and Chan, S. T. (2012). Ownership structure, family leadership, and performance of affiliate firms in large family business groups. Special Issue on Leadership in Asia, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2): 303-329.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management science, 48(1): 1-23.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: 95-120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge , MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Coser, L. A., Kadushin, C., and Powell, W. W. (1982). Books: The Culture andCommerce of Publishing. New York: Basic Books.
D’Aunno, T., Succi, M. and Alexander, J. A.. (2000). The Role of Institutional and Market Forces in Divergent Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 679-703.
Davis, G. F., and Mizruchi, M. S. (1999). The money center cannot hold: Commercial banks in the US system of corporate governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 215-239.
Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D., and Coombs, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. Journal of Business venturing, 15(3): 211-229.
Di Gregorio, D., and Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research policy, 32(2): 209-227.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. Pp. 3–22 in Institutional Patterns and Organizations, edited by L. Zucker. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920–1940. Pp. 267–92 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Powell, W. W. and P DiMaggio, J. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, (48): 147-160.
Dowling, J., and Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific sociological review, 122-136.
Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4): 660-679.
Fairclough, S., and Micelotta, E. R. (2013). Beyond the family firm: Reasserting the influence of the family institutional logic across organizations. Institutional Logics in Action, Part B.
Fligstein, N. (1990). The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fontana, R., Geuna, A., and Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research policy, 35(2): 309-323.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J., Boal, K. B. and Hunt, J. G. (1998). Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of FirstOrder Change in Prospector and Defender Banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 87-126.
Friedland, R., and Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio P. J. (Ed.), Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, J., and Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1): 17-30.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free press.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 481-510.
Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: a framework for analysis. Acta sociologica, 35(1): 3-11.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., and Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses.Organization Science, 21(2): 521-539.
Gulati, R. M., Kilduff, S. Li, A. Shipilov, and W. Tsai (Guest Eds.). (2010). Special research forum: Call for papers on relational pluralism of individuals, teams, and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1556 –1557.
Gulati, R., and Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 32-69.
Gulati, R., and Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 473-506.
Hillman, A. J., and Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28: 383-396.
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., and Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The Resource Dependence Role of Corporate Directors: Strategic Adaptation of Board Composition in Response to Environmental Change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2): 235-256.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., and Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of management, 35(6): 1404-1427.
Kalton, G., Kasprzyk, D., and McMillen, D. (1998). Nonsampling Errors in Panel Surveys. New York: Wiley
Karra, N., Tracey, P., and Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family firm: Exploring the role of family, kinship, and ethnicity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 861-877.
Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2): 295-332.
Kilduff, M., and Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Sage.
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge University Press.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 289-307.
Marquis, C. and Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la resistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 799-820.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., and Lester, R. H. (2011). Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: Social context, identity, and institutional logics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1): 1-25.
Minichiello, V, Aroni, R., Timewell, E. and Alexander, L. (1995). In-Depth Interviewing. 2nd edn. Sydney: Longman.
Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual review of sociology, 271-298.
Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research policy, 34(5): 583-594.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2): 242-266.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-79.
Parmigiani, A. and Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4): 1108-1136.
Peng, M. W. and Jiang, Y. (2010). Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 253-273.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6):1033-1065.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random House.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1977). Organizational context and the characteristics and tenure of hospital administrators. Academy of Management journal, 20(1): 74-88.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
Powers, J. B. and McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research policy, 34(7): 1028-1042.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1): 65-78.
Ranganathan, R. and Rosenkopf, L. (2014). Do ties really bind? The effect of knowledge and commercialization networks on opposition to standards. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 515-540.
Ritchie, W. J. and Kolodinsky, R. W. (2003). Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: An evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(4): 367-381.
Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization (Vol. 3). Univ of California Press.
Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., and Rowley, T. J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 846-864.
Shipilov, A., Gulati, R., Kilduff, M., Li, S., and Tsai, W. (2014). Relational pluralism within and between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 449-459.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., and Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research policy, 32(1): 27-48.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., and Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P., and Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. in Handbook of organizational institutionalism. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin- Andersson, and R. Suddaby (eds). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative science quarterly, 1-13.
Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing.International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5): 355-379.
Wald, K. D. and Calhoun-Brown, A. (2014). Religion and politics in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., and Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization science, 8(2): 109-125.
Wallmark, J. T. (1997). Inventions and patents at universities: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation, 17(3): 127-139.
Walshe, K. and Shortell, S. (2004). Social Regulation of Healthcare Organizations in the United States: Developing a Framework for Evaluation. Health Services Management Research, 17: 79-99.
Wasserman, N. and Boeker, W. (2006). Mentoring and monitoring: Linkages between CEOs and boards of directors in new ventures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School (Working Paper).
Wong P. K., Ho, Y.P., and Singh, A. (2008). Towards a “Global Knowledge Enterprise”: The Entrepreneurial University Model of the National University of Singapore. In 2nd Workshop for SPF funded Project, 21st-22nd February 2008.