The University-Creativity Index In order to get at the broader relationship between the university and regional creativity, we constructed a or UCI. The index combines a measure of student University-Creativity Index concentration with the percent of a region’s work force in the creative class. In keeping with Chapple et al. (2004), this is a diversified measure, which is more likely to capture more of the big picture. We view this not as a measure of actual creative performance, but rather as a measure of how a region’s absorptive capacity is capitalizing on its university capabilities and how it combines them with other creative assets. In our view, a ranking in the top 50 means a region has considerable assets to work with and is well positioned to leverage those assets for improved innovative and economic performance. Table 10 shows regions on the Index for four regional size classes. The top five large regions are all noted high-tech regions: San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, Austin, and Boston. Rounding out the top 10 are Sacramento and Oakland (both in the San Francisco Bay Area), Seattle, Denver, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The rankings for small and medium-size regions, not surprisingly, are dominated by major state university centers, such as Lansing, MI (Michigan State); Ann Arbor, MI (University of Michigan); Madison, WI (University of Wisconsin); Provo, UT (University of Utah); Gainesville, FL (University of Florida); Bryan-College Station, TX (Texas A&M); and Corvallis, OR (University of Oregon), among many others. These findings suggest there is tremendous potential for harnessing university assets for regional economic growth in these communities. This trend is already occurring in some of these places, notably Madison’s recent ascendance as a center for industry and spin-off companies.
The University-Creativity Index In order to get at the broader relationship between the university and regional creativity, we constructed a University-Creativity Index or UCI. The index combines a measure of student concentration with the percent of a region’s work force in the creative class. In keeping with Chapple et al. (2004), this is a diversified measure, which is more likely to capture more of the big picture. We view this not as a measure of actual creative performance, but rather as a measure of how a region’s absorptive capacity is capitalizing on its university capabilities and how it combines them with other creative assets. In our view, a ranking in the top 50 means a region has considerable assets to work with and is well positioned to leverage those assets for improved innovative and economic performance. Table 10 shows regions on the Index for four regional size classes. The top five large regions are all noted high-tech regions: San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, Austin, and Boston. Rounding out the top 10 are Sacramento and Oakland (both in the San Francisco Bay Area), Seattle, Denver, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The rankings for small and medium-size regions, not surprisingly, are dominated by major state university centers, such as Lansing, MI (Michigan State); Ann Arbor, MI (University of Michigan); Madison, WI (University of Wisconsin); Provo, UT (University of Utah); Gainesville, FL (University of Florida); Bryan-College Station, TX (Texas A&M); and Corvallis, OR (University of Oregon), among many others. These findings suggest there is tremendous potential for harnessing university assets for regional economic growth in these communities. This trend is already occurring in some of these places, notably Madison’s recent ascendance as a center for industry and spin-off companies.
ECE%20Florida%20%20Knudsen%20Stolarick%20Chapter%203%20UPDATED%20FINAL.docx