PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers

Abstract

The research program organization has been generalized to implement research policies in OECD countries. Principal investigators are the linchpin of the program based organization as they are developing research project to fit within programs. However, principal investigators are not only project managers but they also enact their environment, shape organization, heterogenous networks, research avenues, research communities and transepistemic arenas.

Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom

“…The manner in which this capital is utilized, as well as the areas supported by it to help sustain scientific excellence, varies by institution. The knowledge filters (Acs et al, 2009) adopted by universities can further reduce the barriers between knowledge investment and commercialisation for scientists Mangematin et al, 2014).…”

Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework

“…The PI engages in both managing different stakeholders for public science, but also in designing, resourcing, and delivering large-scale publicly funded projects, arbitrating and attempting to distribute the costs and returns for relevant entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. The emerging literature on PIs describes them as scientific entrepreneurs who shape new paradigms, reshape the boundaries of organizations, and span boundaries between the public and private sector (Casati and Genet 2014;Mangematin et al 2014), thus strive for mutual beneficial outcomes that can enhance economic and non-economic value around disruptive knowledge (McAdam et al 2012).…”

“…Added to this, a number of scholars have emphasized the research management duties associated with the PI role (Adler et al 2009;Boardman and Ponomariov 2014), while Etzkowitz (2003) refers to research groups that are led by PIs as Bquasi-firms.M oreover, the PI role involves significant coordination among entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. The expansion of the role and activities beyond traditional scientific leadership has created a new tension for scientists, particularly around governance as Mangematin et al (2014: 2) describe: BIn the new governance of science and universities, principal investigators have increased responsibility as scientific fiduciaries. The legal and the informal responsibilities entailed in the financial management of research pose new administrative challenges for the principal investigator, requiring them to measure carefully the balance of research management and research leadership in their approach to their principal investigator mission.…”

“…Based on their study of Irish PIs, Cunningham et al (2014) found that the balance for PIs is more on research management and less on research leadership. PIs are in essence CEOs of temporary organizations within their own institution (see Mangematin et al 2014). Managerial responsiveness thus means that PIs have to deal with core managerial tensions and changing conditions and objectives: entrepreneurial versus scientific outputs; balancing existing workloads versus applying for new funding opportunities; IP protection versus IP exploitation; project sustainability versus continual loss of talents and experiences; research management versus research leadership; managing power of collaboration partners.…”

“…To manage and deal with all the governance issues associated with large-scale publicly funded research within entrepreneurial ecosystems (Hagendijk and Irwin 2006), PIs need to possess certain capabilities to navigate, arbitrate, and shape the governance mechanisms of different actors and supporting institutions as well as fulfilling their PI roles and responsibilities successfully (see Mangematin et al 2014). To contribute to the overall value creation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem, PIs need to have the capabilities to allocate resources, costs, and benefits among entrepreneurial ecosystem actors on the basis of incomplete contracts.…”