No abstract

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

With the growing amount and increasing heterogeneity of research on purpose-oriented networks (PONs) in the public sector, it is imperative to find a way to synthesize this research. Drawing on the varied research perspectives on PONs, we advance the idea of paradigm interplay and meta-synthesis as aspirations for the field and argue this is especially key if we want the study of PONs to inform practice. However, we recognize several challenges in the current state of the PON research that prevent the field from making strides in paradigm interplay and meta-synthesis. We discuss six challenges which we consider the most critical: different labels, differences across research foci, variation in measurement, the nestedness of networks, the dynamism of networks, and variation in the network context. We suggest six good research practices that could contribute to overcoming the challenges now so as to make integration of the research field more of a possibility in the future.

Divergent time norms between participating organizations constitute a central barrier to cross-sectoral collaborations. We unpack this tension by studying two distinct time-utilization strategies of university and industry in 1845 R&D consortia. The paper shows that collaborating organizations that are subject to divergent time norms can shift the time focus in their favor through the strategic timing of repeated ties. If university-industry consortia are repeated, this repetition tends to take place either at the beginning of the consortium (parallel timing) or at the end (sequential timing) but typically not in the middle. Industry partners seek to "compress time" by working on different consortia in parallel and therefore want to repeat a collaboration early, whereas universities seek to "extend time" through sequential timing of consortia, i.e., repeat a collaboration at the end or after a consortium has ended. We provide a qualitative substantiation of the identified time-utilization strategies and show that both options coexist in multipartner consortia.

No abstract