Implementing a ‘bottom-up,’ multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study

Abstract

The vast majority of research collaboration among firms is informal. Unfortunately, little research has focused on informal, multi-institutional research collaboration, partly because by their very nature these collaborations are difficult to study systematically. In this study, we employ case study methodology to examine a large-scale research collaboration, the 2000 TexasAir Quality Study, which could be labeled 'multi-sector, multi-institution'and 'informal. ' We develop the case based on a contingency model of research collaboration effectiveness, our chief objective being to assess the impact of various characteristics of the collaboration on the project's outcomes. We find the case to align with the terms of the model, thereby distilling some implications for a theory of research collaboration effectiveness, at least within the domain of large-scale, multi-institutional, multi-sector research collaborations.

Collaboration networks within a French cluster: Do partners really interact with each other?

“…Interactions between firms and/or research labs within innovation networks can take different forms and can be measured by different indicators, in particular alliances (Gay and Dousset ; Stuart et al ; Gilsing et al ), co‐authorship in scientific publications (Ponds et al ; Fritsch and Kauffeld‐Monz ; Hoekman et al ), co‐patenting (Hussler and Ronde ; Carayol and Roux ; Breschi and Lissoni ; Hanaki et al ), European Programmes (Breschi and Cusmano ; Roediger‐Schluga and Barber ; Autant‐Bernard et al ) and research consortia (Busom and Fernandez‐Ribas ; Cassiman et al ; Vicente et al ), or even PhD students co‐supervised between science and industry sponsors (Levy ; Bouba‐Olga et al ). To collect these different data, some authors build their own one, mainly using case studies or surveys (Boardman and Bozeman ; Arvanitis et al ; Bekkers and Freitas ; Cassiman et al ), while others use existing datasets, including international surveys as the European community innovation survey (Cassiman and Veugelers ; Belderbos et al ; Mora‐Valentin et al ).…”

“…The studies cited above have often specific sectorial and/or territorial delimitations, such as university‐industry linkages in Austria (Schartinger et al ), Switzerland (Arvanitis et al ) and France (Ferru ), Texas air quality research collaborations (Boardman and Bozeman ), New‐Zealand biomedical collaborations (He et al ), or European biotechnology (Gay and Dousset ; Stuart et al ), nanotechnology (Autant‐Bernard et al ; Cunningham and Werker ), IT industry (Hanaki et al ), or GNSS sector studies (Vicente et al ; Balland ; Balland et al ). These sectorial and/or territorial delimitations are both the strength and the weakness of case study method, with deep understanding of studied mechanisms but limited possibility to generalize results.…”

A Mesolevel Communicative Model of Collaboration

“…With regard to strategy, we purposely separate individuals from the organizations they represent. Although we suspect that in most cases, representatives act in good faith and fully represent the interests of their organizations or stakeholder groups (see Boardman & Bozeman, 2006, for a discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to collaboration), collaborations may reveal personal opportunities (e.g., other employment opportunities and personal investment) that do not benefit their organizations. Individuals may also differ from their organization home or stakeholder group in respect to values or goals (Heath & Frey, 2004; Stohl & Walker, 2002).…”

“…Individuals may also differ from their organization home or stakeholder group in respect to values or goals (Heath & Frey, 2004; Stohl & Walker, 2002). This distinction is important, as individuals can come and go from the collaboration, but the “fundamental properties of collaborating institutions cannot” (Boardman & Bozeman, 2006, p. 63). This effect is heightened when different individuals represent an organization’s interest across the time frame of the collaboration.…”

University Research Centres: Organizational Structures and Performance

“…Currently, due to the diversity of research institutions it is possible to observe several levels of administration according to the organizational structures chosen by their leaders or by their owners. Structure/ design, is a concept defined in terms of a loose and/or informal way of managing the institution as a condition of improving collaboration (Boardman and Bozeman, 2006). Different kinds of structures promote a kind of management which shows different levels of control, communication, participation, roles, incentives, duties, to mention but some of them.…”