The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context

Adler, Niclas; Elmquist, Maria; Norrgren, Flemming

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.05.001

Cited by 78 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that attempt to uncover the nature of persons' experiences with a social phenomenon are more suited to qualitiative types of research (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Furthermore, using such a qualitative approach is consistent with previous research studies that have examined boundary-spanning actors (Adler et al, 2009;Ashill et al, 2001;Druskat and Wheeler, 2003;Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008;Suchitra and Sankaran, 2007).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Furthermore, Boehm and Hogan (2014) argue that the managerial capabilities of PIs are essential to deal with internal project issues but are even more critical for sustainable inter-organisational relationships such as industry collaborations. Adler et al (2009) also make an interesting contribution to the literature on research management when identifying six important managerial issues that are encountered when managing research activities which include (i) a lack of focus on research management and unsatisfying prerequisites; (ii) weak identity and low status of the role of the research managers; (iii) few incentives for research management; (iv) lack of leadership development opportunities for researchers; (v) multiple (and sometimes contradictory) expectations and logics from different stakeholders, and (vi) sustained funding.…”

Section: Principal Investigator Managerial Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Cunningham

O’Reilly

O’Kane

et al. 2015

IJTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Principal investigators (PI) are at the nexus of university business collaborations through their leadership of funded research grants. In fulfilling their multiple roles, PIs are involved in a range of different activities, from direct scientific supervision of junior scientists, the organisation of new scientific avenues to engaging with industrial partners. With the increased impetus for public research to produce wealth through science commercialisation, research is increasingly orchestrated through programmes which seek to connect research avenues and markets. The role of PIs is of growing importance. The extent of managerial challenges encountered by scientists in the context of their PI role has not been the focus of any empirical studies. This paper examines the managerial challenges experienced by publicly funded PIs. Our study, set in the context of the Irish research system, found three foci of PI managerial challenges -project management, project adaptability and project network management.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Principal Investigator Managerial Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Cunningham

O’Reilly

O’Kane

et al. 2015

IJTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the role of research leaders as boundary spanners to articulate different disciplines, different points of view and logics to solve problems (Adler et al, 2009;Bozeman et al, 2004;Comacchio et al, 2011;Jain et al, 2009). The boundary spanning perspective is very important to introduce three dimensions that are expanded in this special issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers

Mangematin¹,

O’Reilly²,

Cunningham³

2012

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…For example, there is increasing acknowledgement that PIs contribute to industry growth (Audretsch and Stephan 1996;Zucker et al 2002), acquire capital and resources (Forti et al 2013;Kidwell 2013), and act as inventors and market shapers (Baglieri and Lorenzoni 2014;Casati and Genet 2014;Murray 2004) as well as boundary spanning agents who connect scientific inquiry, innovation, and industry (Boehm and Hogan 2014;Gittelman and Kogut 2003). 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.…”

Section: Responsibilities Of Pis As Entrepreneurial Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has largely taken a macro-perspective to better conceptualize and map the determinants and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, yet has neglected the micro-level interactions of various entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. Recent criticisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems have centered on the lack of explicit case and effect relationships, attribution, units of analysis, the different use of network definitions as well as the static nature of existing frameworks. The purpose of our paper is to present a micro level principal investigator (PI)-centered governance framework that addresses these posited criticisms and in doing so identifies the value creation indicators (benefits), PI capabilities, the problem categories (costs), and solving mechanisms that PIs can use to govern effectively and efficiently large-scale publicly funded research programs. In leading such research programs, PIs interact with different actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems and manage governance issues, conflicts, and tensions effectively at the micro level to deliver the anticipated benefits and costs for each actor. Our framework provides the basis for future empirical research on entrepreneurial ecosystem as we have attributed cause and effect at an individual actor level and conceptualized the governance challenges at a micro rather than at the macro level that overcomes the static nature of previous frameworks.

show abstract

The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context

Cited by 78 publications

References 13 publications

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers

Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About