Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society-level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.

Firms' organization of exploratory research has interested scholars of both research policy and organizational theory, yet we still know too little about how firms undertake organizational changes to shift to more-exploratory strategies. Adopting a process perspective, we explore this question through a longitudinal, comparative case study of a Danish pharmaceutical firm and a French-Italian semiconductor firm. We demonstrate how firms adjust their organizational structures to increase exploration, a process of constantly addressing countervailing organizational and interorganizational demands by deploying, combining, and changing balancing mechanisms at the organizational and managerial levels. Moreover, our findings show that firms' different organizational structures affect their adaptations to exploratory outcomes. These findings advance theory because they illuminate the dynamic interplay between firms' adjustments of organizational structures and their movements toward more exploration. We use a recursive process model to theorize our findings.

This paper explores academic-industry relations from the perspective of research managers in the pharmaceutical industry. While current policy discourse on academic-industry relations has emphasized the potential of creating stronger alignment between academic research and industrial R&D, scholars have also drawn attention to the fundamental misalignment of the two domains and the inherently problematic aspects of over-close ties. In this paper, we address the articulation of alignment and 'unalignment' in academic-industry relations and explore how industrial participants reflect on their relationship with academic research. The paper draws on a longitudinal study of academic-industry collaboration in a Danish pharmaceutical company, carried out from 2009 to 2011. Focusing on one specific case of collaboration, we show that these industry research managers make sense of academic-industry relations by both aligning and unaligning themselves with academic research. Indeed, at critical stages, and rather than simply serving as an impediment, the process of aligning and unaligning can be an important driver to collaboration. Generally, we propose that focusing on participants' aligning and unaligning stances and efforts holds the promise of developing more nuanced, empirically-based accounts of academic-industry relations.

Control‐trust dynamics are fundamental to organizational life, but managers struggle to balance them because these dynamics draw on opposing mechanisms. Past research has mainly assumed that substitution and complementarity constitute key control‐trust dynamics, which has limited scholars' understanding of why these dynamics are difficult to balance and how managers deal with them over time. We explore managers' responses to paradoxical control‐trust dynamics. We conducted a longitudinal case study of how managers in a pharmaceutical company dealt with these dynamics in an interorganizational relationship with a university and a biotech firm. Our findings show (a) a new category of response to control‐trust dynamics beyond substitution and complementarity (the More‐Than), (b) three new enacted responses beyond balancing (paradoxical thinking, fulfilling promises, and transcending), and (c) a governance path that managers' responses evolve over time. Our findings suggest that managers' responses to paradoxical control‐trust dynamics ensure the performance and endurance of interorganizational relationships.

No abstract