Collaboration and change in the research networks of five Energy Frontier Research Centers

Smith, A.; Lai, Steven; Bea-Taylor, Jonah; Hill, R.; Kleinhenz, Nabil

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw006

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the regional university system is not always easily accessible to subsidiaries (Heidenreich & Mattes, ). The broader university environment that sets norms and expectations for individual behaviors—may constrain CRC academics (Benneworth et al, ; Pinheiro, ; Nieth et al, ; Sánchez‐Barrioluengo & Benneworth, ; Smith et al, ). Research and teaching are the primary tasks of a professor, and industry‐related projects that take their time away from these may be seen as a burden.…”

Section: Unpacking the Black Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For one, headquarters (HQs) can refuse to support a subsidiary's regional initiatives (Chen, Chen, & Ku, ; Heidenreich & Mattes, ). Secondly, CRCs are not always able to negotiate and coordinate with industry partners (Benneworth, Pinheiro, & Karlsen, ; Boardman & Ponomariov, ; Un & Rodríguez, ; Smith, Lai, Bea‐Taylor, Hill, & Kleinhenz, ; Gulbrandsen, ). However, we lack microlevel studies that confirm these factors affect CRC‐subsidiary interactions in practice (Heidenreich & Mattes, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of university‐industry research centers in embedding foreign subsidiaries: Insights from automotive research and development in Ontario

Goracinova

2019

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regionally embedded foreign subsidiaries have an advantage over disembedded ones. The ability to draw on local knowledge networks to create differentiating capabilities can enhance the subsidiary's influence within the multinational enterprise. A subsidiary's power is shaped by its control over external resources or skills the parent company depends on to develop new products. These local relationships are then used to bargain for further mandates, sometimes in competition with sister subsidiaries. One way in which foreign subsidiaries can deepen their connections with the local context is by collaborating in their innovative efforts with university‐based collaborative research centers (CRCs). I argue that CRCs are not a panacea when it comes to embedding the subsidiaries of foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs). A review of the literature helps identify the subsidiary‐parent relationship and industry‐academia conflicts of interest as obstacles to the development of productive relationships between subsidiaries and academia. I draw on evidence from three Ontario CRCs, with different scientific focus and stakeholders and analyze how these factors shape their behavior. The study shows that long‐term CRCs‐subsidiary relationships can be challenging to establish. This is because subsidiaries remain tightly controlled by their parent companies and cannot get access to the resources necessary to pursue ambitious innovation projects. It is also challenging for subsidiaries to form long‐term relationships with CRC researchers, who prioritize other goals such as training skilled personnel and continuing their research agenda. CRCs where 1) subsidiaries have a strong bargaining position within the MNE, and 2) academic expertise is aligned with industry needs have a greater chance to contribute to future MNE embeddedness.

show abstract

Section: Unpacking the Black Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of university‐industry research centers in embedding foreign subsidiaries: Insights from automotive research and development in Ontario

Goracinova

2019

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The academic literature that investigates the role and effectiveness of research programmes mostly focuses on funding programmes such as the European Framework Programmes (Luukkonen, 2001) or research centres and networks funded by the National Science Foundation (Garner, Porter, Newman, & Crowl, 2012). Additionally, existing research evaluates collaborative initiatives at the national level, such as Centres of Excellence or University Research Centres (Schröder, Welter, Leisten, Richert, & Jeschke, 2014;Smith, Lai, Bea-Taylor, Hill, & Kleinhenz, 2016). This leaves the phenomenon of global research programmes as coordination mechanisms -i.e.…”

Section: Research Programmes As Coordination Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is a strong believe in the benefits of large-scale research programmes among policy-makers and research managers, only a hand full of studies have assessed whether research programmes serve the goals for which they are created (Smith et al, 2016). Overall, these studies find that research programmes and networks, also without a large funding base, have the potential to enhance collaboration (Bernard de Raymond, 2018; Bridgewater, 2015;Jappe, 2009;Johnson, Christian, Brunt, Hickman, & Waide, 2010;Klenk, Hickey, & MacLellan, 2010;Smith et al, 2016). Yet, there are some important factors to consider.…”

Section: How Does Coordination Through Research Programmes Work?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, while integrating research across multiple place-based projects is highly valued in global change and sustainability research, this type of collaboration often proves to be particularly challenging (Bridgewater, 2015;Withycombe Keeler et al, 2015). Second, collaboration within research programmes tends to be based on pre-existing communities and networks (Smith et al, 2016). This finding is supported by several case studies that found that outcomes of research programmes could at least partly be explained by self-organisation rather than coordination Jappe, 2009;Johnson et al, 2010).…”

Section: How Does Coordination Through Research Programmes Work?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

Hel¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addressing this question, I am focusing specifically on the principle of co-production and related participatory ideals. The principle of co-production is relatively novel and different perspectives on its meaning, desirability and implementation exist. This allows me to study how different perspectives shape the development of global science institutions. I will address this question in Chapter 5 and Chapter 9.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of Russian and industrialized countries performance on Energy and Fuels, WoS, 2008–2017

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selection of basic research priorities plays an important role in efficient science policy. After the economic crisis in 2008 many countries turned its attention to R&D of energy resources. Effective development of R&D could contribute to efficiency of oil and gas processing and improve Russian prosperity. The goal of our study is to examine trends in Russian research performance (RP) and compare them with other leading industrialized countries. More detailed analysis was focused on tracing evolution in the research area (by WoS classification) as Energy&Fuel (E&F), which is invaluable for the Russian economy. Sources of data were Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) that is the part of Web of Science (WoS), analytical tool InCites and the national database Russian Science Citation Index-Clarivate. World dataset demonstrated the growth rate in total research performance (RP) by 140% (2,006,082 records) in 2017 compared to 2008 (1,416,233 records). Russian RP growth rate was the same as in world dataset in 2008-2017. Our analysis revealed that two of each RA Science Technology and Other Topics, and Energy & Fuels (E&F) demonstrated striking growth rate (in three-fold) comparing with growth rate 140% in the world dataset during 2008-2017. Total amount of Russian RP on E&F consisted of 4237 records indexed in SCI-E and 6300 records indexed in RSCI-C for 10 years. During the last 10 years, Russia significantly improved various citations indicators of RP on E&F. The share of publications in top 1% and top 10% journals increased. Russian RP growth rate on E&F was about 200%. Despite the growth its impact is low compared to leading industrial countries. A significant disparity was revealed in RP distribution by leading organizations in SCI-E and RSCI-C. Powerful Russian oil and gas companies are practically absent among organizations indexed in SCI-E. Contrarily, the national Russian database RSCI-C revealed a network of regional branches of the famous private oil company named "Lukoil". Russian international collaboration (IC) on E&F is significantly less (about 8-10%) than in total Russian RP. The negative factor is low number of IC on E&F with each of traditional Russian partners as Germany and USA. Value of Jaccard index of almost all countries collaborating with Russia (besides Kazakhstan's 0.46) is no higher than 0.2. This indicates significant difference in direction of research. Our data could be useful as a source for effective decision-making. Keywords Bibliometric • Energy and Fuels • Indicators • InCites • WoSThis paper is dedicated to the memory of Judit Bar-Ilan (1958, an outstanding scholar and an inimitable friend and colleague.

show abstract

Collaboration and change in the research networks of five Energy Frontier Research Centers

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

The role of university‐industry research centers in embedding foreign subsidiaries: Insights from automotive research and development in Ontario

The role of university‐industry research centers in embedding foreign subsidiaries: Insights from automotive research and development in Ontario

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

Comparative analysis of Russian and industrialized countries performance on Energy and Fuels, WoS, 2008–2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About