Organizational design of University laboratories: Task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories

Shibayama, Sotaro; Baba, Yasunori; Walsh, John P.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.003

Cited by 42 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, while there may be productivity gains from division of labor, Leahey and Reikowsky (2008) find that only 11% of collaborations in sociology involves complementary specialists (which tend to involve a clear division of labor), while the majority involves cooperation among generalists with little clear division of labor. Similarly, Shibayama et al (2015) find significant variation in division of labor across life science research labs. One counter force limiting the division of labor is the training function that university research groups perform (for graduate students and post-docs), which may put limits on division of labor (Delamont and Atkinson, 2001;Hackett, 1990;Pavlidis et al, 2014).…”

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

“…We might expect this for scientific organizations, as collaborators specialize in particular aspects of the research task, for example, having some concentrate on data collection (with further subdivision into specific aspects of data collection), others on statistical analysis, and still others on integrating findings into a research report (Shibayama et al, 2015). However, while there may be productivity gains from division of labor, Leahey and Reikowsky (2008) find that only 11% of collaborations in sociology involves complementary specialists (which tend to involve a clear division of labor), while the majority involves cooperation among generalists with little clear division of labor.…”

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, we are focusing on the individual paper, and hence the size of the project that produced the paper (rather than the lab) is the measure we are using. For an analysis of the division of labor at the level of the lab, see Shibayama et al (2015).…”

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Salonius (2008) documents this transformation in the case of Canadian biomedical researchers and discusses the implications of this transformation for the training of scientists. Shibayama et al (2015) document the extent of specialization in the roles of entrepreneur (tasked with generating funding and selecting projects, rather than executing the research) among Japanese biomedical researchers. More (1980) argues that one aspect of industrialization of craft occupations is separation of the master from the everyday shop work, with training done by journeymen, or apprentices left to learn what they can while spending most of their time specializing in a specific task in the shop.…”

Section: Training and Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The bureaucratization of science

Walsh

Lee

2015

Research Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Training and Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The bureaucratization of science

Walsh

Lee

2015

Research Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, scientists often aggregate in small, multi disciplinary teams that enjoy autonomy in defining their specific research objectives and the ways in which they are pursued and compete with each other to be the first to achieve major scientific discoveries (Lee, Walsh, and Wang, ; Sauermann and Haeussler, ; Shibayama, Baba, and Walsh, ). These teams typically operate within large scientific institutions, which provide them with complementary technological resources, advanced scientific infrastructures, and research funding.…”

Section: Organizing For Radical Innovation: Introduction To the Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizing for Radical Innovation: Exploring Novel Insights

Colombo

Krogh²,

Rossi‐Lamastra

et al. 2017

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While radical innovation brings extensive economic rewards to firms, it is an activity fraught with risk. Prior research has shown that such risks mainly stem from organizational arrangements (at the level of individuals, teams, firms, and inter firm collaborations), which are inadequate or inefficient to support radical innovation. The papers in this special issue on “Organizing for Radical Innovation: Exploring Novel Insights” take stock of past work and provide novel insights about how to organize for radical innovation. The overarching idea linking them is that radical innovation hinges on the creation of fundamentally new knowledge and the continuous stimulation of creativity. Thus, organizational arrangements that support such processes play a crucial role in explaining and predicting the successful commercialization of breakthrough ideas, radically new technologies, and solutions. In particular, the field of science, which in essence aims for the systematic production of new knowledge, can be a valid source of inspiration for how individuals, teams, firms, and interfirm collaborations should organize for radical innovation. Moving from these premises, in this introductory paper, we offer an overview of the topic of organizing for radical innovation and highlight possible linkages with the organizing principles. Then, we summarize the main insights from the papers in this special issue and use their core ideas to sketch a novel research agenda for scholars working at the intersection of organization theory, economics of science, and management of innovation.

show abstract

Knowledge creation through collaboration: The role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity

Stephens

Cummings

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines how shared affiliations within an institution (e.g., same primary appointment, same secondary appointment, same research center, same laboratory/facility) and physical proximity (e.g., walking distance between collaborator offices) shape knowledge creation through biomedical science collaboration in general, and interdisciplinary collaboration in particular. Using archival and publication data, we examine pairwise research collaborations among 1,138 faculty members over a 12-year period at a medical school in the United States. Modeling at the dyadic level, we find that faculty members with more shared institutional affiliations are positively associated with knowledge creation and knowledge impact, and that this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We further find that the positive influence of disciplinary diversity (e.g., collaborators from different fields) on knowledge impact is stronger among pairs that share more affiliations and is significantly reduced as the physical distance among collaborators increases. These results support the idea that shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity can increase interpersonal contact, providing more opportunities to develop trust and mutual understanding, and thus alleviating some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher disciplinary diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on scientific collaborations, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

show abstract

Organizational design of University laboratories: Task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories

Cited by 42 publications

References 33 publications

The bureaucratization of science

The bureaucratization of science

Organizing for Radical Innovation: Exploring Novel Insights

Knowledge creation through collaboration: The role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About