Institutionalization of university research centers: The case of the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research

Youtie, Jan; Libaers, Dirk; Bozeman, Barry

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.11.007

Cited by 61 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2002) examined 53 collaborations in physics and allied sciences and discussed four organisational formats (bureaucratic, leaderless, non‐specialised, participatory). Youtie et al. (2006) examined the goals, procedures, organising principles and organisational forms of university research centres funded by the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chompalov et al (2002) examined 53 collaborations in physics and allied sciences and discussed four organisational formats (bureaucratic, leaderless, nonspecialised, participatory). Youtie et al (2006) examined the goals, procedures, organising principles and organisational forms of university research centres funded by the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research. They reported that formalisation and institutionalisation were associated with organisational age and concluded that routinised administrative structures accelerate the research advancement trajectory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships

King

Servais

Forchuk

et al. 2009

Health &Amp; Social Care in the Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the increasing number of multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships designed to address real-world issues, little is known about their nature. This article describes the features and impacts of five research partnerships addressing health or social service issues, which constituted a convenience sample from the province of Ontario, Canada. The article describes their characteristics, ways of operating, outputs, types of requests received from community members and mid-term impacts. Requests directed to partnerships were tracked over a 10-month period in 2003 to 2004, using a research contact checklist, and 174 community members later completed an impact questionnaire capturing perceptions of the impacts of the partnerships on personal knowledge and research skill development, organisational/group access to and use of information, and community and organisational development. The data indicated that partnerships had similar priorities and magnitudes of mid-term impacts, yet differed in the scope of their partnering, realm of intended influence and the number of mechanisms used to engage and communicate with target audiences. The partnerships produced different types of outputs and received different types of requests from community members. The findings inform researchers about partnership diversity and help to establish more realistic expectations about the magnitude of partnerships' impacts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships

King

Servais

Forchuk

et al. 2009

Health &Amp; Social Care in the Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to offset these obstacles to TDR, university research centers provide scientists with facilities, funding, human resources, and support services explicitly targeted to this approach. Empirical studies conducted in various contexts show that these organizations foster investigations across disciplinary and institutional boundaries (Boardman, 2009;Corley & Gaughan, 2005;Gaughan & Ponomariov, 2008;Ponomariov & Boardman, 2010;Youtie et al, 2006), while their effect on scientific productivity is unclear (see e.g., Boardman, 2010 andPonomariov, 2008;Gaughan & Bozeman, 2002).…”

Section: Incentives At the Organization Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center

Lauto

Sengoku

2015

Futures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a method of investigating complex socially relevant phenomena, transdisciplinary research (TDR) is gaining increasing centrality as a model of knowledge production. However, it is being discouraged by a scientific reward system based on disciplinary logic. The disincentive is even stronger for junior scholars who should be developing the capabilities necessary for achieving long-term scientific excellence.\ud \ud Building on theories of the coordination of scientific communities and using the case of a research center of Kyoto University investigating the boundary between cell and material sciences, we aim to disentangle the interplay between institutional incentives and intrinsic motivation in the prioritization of TDR over monodisciplinary research.\ud \ud We find that, despite strong interest in TDR among scientists and the center's mission to promote this orientation, only a minority of scientists prioritize this approach. Choice of research strategy is associated with its perceived benefits for idea generation, publication opportunities, intellectual effort required, the costs of team coordination, and satisfaction with organizational resources. Furthermore, the propensity to prioritize TDR drops among scientists beginning their careers.\ud \ud Therefore, we recommend the development of evaluation schemes grounded in activity-based measures and the granting of permanent positions to scientists pursuing TDR

show abstract

“…The important differentiating criterion of this program lies with the more central, active role of the university's industrial partners. Given the breadth of organizational forms and research foci across Centers of Excellence programs, both in terms of research scale and scope, scholars have struggled to reach a consensus on the definitive features that characterize these unique research organizations (Aboelela et al 2007;Mallon and Bunton 2005;Youtie, Libaers, and Bozeman 2006;Friedman and Friedman 1982).…”

Section: Background On State Science Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Value Creation in Mobile Applications

Jaffe¹,

Jones²

2015

The Changing Frontier

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutionalization of university research centers: The case of the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research

Cited by 61 publications

References 18 publications

Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships

Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships

Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center

Economic Value Creation in Mobile Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About