Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists

Abstract

Emerging technologies, including nanotechnologies, are generally seen as those latest scientific innovations which have a potential impact on industry structure, and commercialization and economic potential. Work in this area of emerging technologies has distinct boundary spanning characteristics from the perspective of academic science. First, many emerging technologies involve collaboration of scientists across disciplinary boundaries. Second, because of the commercializability of many emerging technologies, scientists may interact more often with industry throughout the research and commercialization process. We ask, what are the boundary-spanning characteristics of scientists engaged in emerging technology research and how do those characteristics matter in obtaining funding in this area? We examine the characteristics of academic scientists in the United States who are employed in research intensive institutions and who are engaged in funded research in the area of emerging technologies. We address the factors that predict their grant success in areas of emerging technology. Findings reveal that interdisciplinary activities and industry orientation are both important in predicting funding in areas of emerging technology. Moreover, the findings imply that the emergence of new technologies may offer opportunities for women in low representation fields.

Boundary Spanning and Engineering: A Qualitative Systematic Review

“…Authors using these and similar concepts tend to take a broader organizational research perspective, with some focusing on organization‐to‐organization connections (e.g., Faems, Janssens, & Van Looy, ; Keller & Holland, ; Ramirez & Dickenson, ) and other intraorganizational links, such as between headquarters and subsidiaries (Reiche, ), between project teams and their external environments (Brion et al, ), and among organizational subunits (Pawlowski & Robey, ; Richter et al, ). As explained previously, boundary spanners may also act as connectors across many other kinds of boundaries, such as cultural (Lundberg, ) and “disciplinary areas, sectorial boundaries, and areas of expertise and specialization” (Melkers & Xiao, , p. 252). Yet the linking pins concept tends to be invoked more frequently when formal or explicit organizational boundaries are involved.…”

Academic Engagement: A Review of the Literature 2011-2019

“…In the latter view, academics are intrinsically motivated to participate in engagement when they perceive the activity to be aligned with their internalised value system of public science or may be extrinsically motivated to do so if offered certain rewards (Lam 2011). A third set of contributions use insights from innovation theories, specifically around knowledge combination, networks and tacit knowledge, to explain outcomes from academic engagement (Beaudry and Kananian, 2013;Lavie and Drori, 2012;Melkers and Xiao, 2012;Thursby and Thursby, 2011a). In this view, the researcher is situated within an interpersonal network, and outcomes are determined by their position within this network.…”

“…Academic scientists adopting a university-industry collaboration strategy and spending more research time in such an arrangement are more likely involved in technology commercialisation with a private firm (however, this relationship is inversely Ushaped). Melkers and Xiao (2012) No gender gaps found. Collaboration with industry increases likelihood of patenting for female academic scientists.…”

“…However, Fini et al (2018) report that the effect they identify is curvilinear, as the ability to obtain grants turns declines for academics with very high levels of industry contract research funding. Relatedly, Melkers and Xiao (2012) find for the US that co-patenting with industry is positive for public grants, while the effect of collaborating with industry on product development is insignificant.…”

Is science driven by principal investigators?

“…There are multiple definitions and understandings of PI's (Cunningham et al 2016b). For instance, according to Melkers and Xiao (2012), PI is a person, usually a senior researcher, who has won numerous grants and may assemble a scientific team to carry out the project under her scientific supervision. In our paper, PI is every researcher that was granted a project by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) 3 ; see Sections 3 and 4 for more details.…”