1 Introduction
2 Theoretical background
2.1 U–I partnership types and their implications for research productivity
2.2 Autonomy and strategic interdependence in U–I partnerships
2.3 Selection and execution in U–I partnerships
3 Methodology
3.1 Case selection and data collection
# | Cases | Interviewees |
---|---|---|
1 | Purchasing and supply chain management (industry-sponsored project) | Ph.D. researcher, full professor |
2 | R&D relationship management (EU project with companies’ involvement; this involvement was a strict policy requirement) | Ph.D. researcher, assistant professor |
3 | Social entrepreneurship (industry-sponsored project) | Ph.D. researcher, assistant professor |
4 | HR management (industry-sponsored project) | Ph.D. researcher |
5 | Innovation and technology management (project financed by a European organisation operating as a firm) | Ph.D. researcher |
6 | Innovation management (industry-sponsored project) | Assistant professor |
7 | Transportation management (National Science Foundation, with companies’ involvement; this involvement was a strict policy requirement) | Associate professor |
8 | Operations management (National Science Foundation, with companies’ involvement; this involvement was a strict policy requirement) | Associate professor |
9 | Technology entrepreneurship (project financed by a public organisation but not a funding organisation) | Associate professor |
10 | Purchasing and supply chain management (combined: network of firms and industry-sponsored project) | Full professor |
11 | Product development and innovation management (industry-sponsored project) | Full professor |
3.2 Data analysis
Label | Strategically planned behaviour (Bingham et al. 2015) |
---|---|
Code 1 | |
Definition | Behaviour that focusses on the long-term planning and long-sighted decision-making of one partner with the goal of mutually enhancing their own resource base and achieving specific goals |
Description | A focus chosen by a partner that is characterised by a long-term perspective on the part of the researcher and goal attainment. Formalisation supports the strategic focus |
Indicators | Reason to choose the partner was the good fit with the own research programme; low willingness to compromise in terms of research direction and outline; disagreements that indicate distinct goals and strategies followed by partners |
Label | Opportunity-driven behaviour (Bingham et al. 2015) |
---|---|
Code 2 | |
Definition | Behaviour that is driven more by the short-term capturing of emerging opportunities and that focusses, besides mutual value creation, on more direct valorisation of project deliverables for both sides of the partnership |
Description | Opportunity potential as a driver makes a partner act with greater flexibility and adaptive response. Less formalisation allows for manoeuvrability in the execution phase |
Indicators | The reason to choose the partner was not only the fit with own expertise; great willingness to compromise in terms of research direction and outline |
Label | Strategic interdependence (Zalewska-Kurek 2016) |
---|---|
Code 3 | |
Definition | Each partner’s dependence on the counterpart’s resources, assets and capabilities |
Description | High degree: a reciprocal relationship with mutual dependencies. Sharing many resources. The industrial partner sponsors research; provides access to data Low degree: a unilateral relationship, with the greatest benefit for one partner. The researcher does not depend greatly on the firm’s resources to undertake the research |
Indicators | The need for strategic interdependence is indicated by the need to access resources, assets and capabilities without which researchers could not perform their research. Examples of resources and capabilities are internal data access, financial resources, access to organisational facilities, access to contacts, social networks, skills and knowledge of both the organisation and the researcher |
Label | Autonomy (Zalewska-Kurek 2016) |
---|---|
Code 4 | |
Definition | The researcher’s freedom to decide on the research direction and to conduct the research, but with the (continuous) support of the firm and the environment |
Description | High degree: having full power and influence over the decisions concerning research direction and the execution of the research Low degree: the industry organisation influences the context and the research directions by making decisions; the research takes place within highly formalised boundaries |
Indicators | Who makes decisions on the research direction and project outline; who proposes changes; time spent on activities not directly related to the joint project but required by the partner; confidentiality clauses and other influences on an intended publication; frequency and content of progress meetings on the project; the researcher’s independence in conducting the research (e.g. deciding on the method); the extent of practitioner-oriented deliverables offered by the researcher |
4 Results
4.1 Opportunity selection phase
4.1.1 Autonomy and opportunity-driven project selection
I am always very open-minded. And sometimes people trigger me, and people are triggered by me and then something might happen. So as an academic to increase fortune, you should be a very active networker. You should go to meetings, you should go to conferences (R7: 61–64).
In ten percent of the cases, I am the one who goes out and invites people [to join a research project]. In eighty to ninety percent of the cases, I am being invited. And then it depends on your capacity and your real interest, and on the energy that you feel with a person, whether you engage with that person on that project or not. (R7: 74–77).
So, these younger colleagues say to me ‘(…) is this going to lead to any publication?’ and I said: I don’t know; I know we are going to do a survey which has a practitioner relevance; it isn’t very theory-driven, but it creates a lot of contacts (R7: 89–91).
It’s not always the case that you can do research that leads to publications. Sometimes you have to do other research which leads to money, to income, but doesn’t necessarily satisfy the basic needs of an academic in terms of publication (R7: 106–109).
He explained some of the things that they were working on and that fits to some extent pretty well with what I’m doing. So, we went by that organization to discuss what they were doing and what their future development were etcetera. And then along the way we found that, or we basically asked: what can we do together? (R12: 8–12).
4.1.2 Autonomy and strategically planned project selection
There are many, many research opportunities out there. So, if you really like sort of going after the opportunity, you probably end up with all kinds of research projects that are not really in line of what you actually want to do. So, I am always very careful in what I do, in which projects I actually accept for companies. And if they don’t fit my own research interest, my research lines, I am not going to do them (R8: 392–396).
4.1.3 Autonomy and mixed behaviour in project selection
And then we said that maybe it would be beneficial if they would have someone working there, who is also, next to working there, is also an advisor also does PhD research. So, two days a week for PhD research, three days a week just doing actual work. But of course, there is an overlap between the two (R12: 12–15).
I have little academic ambition in fact. So, publishability is not a big matter for me, specifically. My supervisors like it, but I think by now they also understood that it’s better to let me do what I want to do than try to put something out of it. And what I want to do is I want to help this organization which really has a problem, or rather I would say has an opportunity actually. (PhD6: 12–17).
4.2 The opportunity execution phase
4.2.1 Focus and flexibility
4.2.2 The need for autonomy
We had a generic idea and a good hunch that we could setup an interesting project. But we didn’t set it in stone, so it was more like an organic way. Because there were quite some risks in the project. So, there was the risk that we could not develop the tool or had no tool. It all went well; we also got access via another firm to a huge database with customers. So, actually, it was a risky project in a sense that the outcome dependent on the input of at least four firms. (R4: 110–115)
It’s our project, completely ours, because you saw it already in the first meeting we had. We were setting the meeting, and they okay, just come’, we made the presentations, we said these are the three studies, and it was all fine. And the student thought ‘what will they think about, what are the requirements’. We set the requirements (R9: 123–127).
Because, in all research projects, you get deviations from what you actually set out to do, and the more you formalise in the beginning, the more you get into this kind of ‘This is not what we supposed to do’, ‘no, because we couldn’t do this, because you didn’t have the data’ or ‘we changed this’. So, it’s like a new product development project; the more you formalize in the beginning the less degrees of freedom you have and the more friction you get at some point during the process (R8: 250–255).
You should be very careful that the industry is not dictating what you research and how you do this, because then they will also get a say or an impact on what you are actually allowed to report and not to report. You should always maintain your academic integrity in this instance (R8: 450–453).
What I know from my PhD student, in the beginning she really liked to be there. So, she liked to have this both doing more practical things and doing the research. But after time, she got fed up with it, because she had this urgency of ‘okay now, I have to do a couple of things’… But it was also for example that she really wants to publish, and the entrepreneur is not really interested in that… and wants more practical things. And, of course, the pressure increases of getting her scientific deliverables at a certain moment. That kind of diverted. But in the beginning, in fact, the entrepreneur was her objective study, so, for her, it was wonderful to be there. It is not only doing an interview; she was there and she could observe what happened, etcetera. So, she really liked that part for that reason, but at a certain moment, she knew how it was going. And there was always more practical work, which also kept her from a couple of other things (R11: 133–143)
I think that such a project [a PhD project] is loaded with confusion, because first of all you start with twenty different stakeholders, expecting different things from such a project. And because it is abstract, you can’t really manage those expectation, because it’s not really clear what is going to happen. And I think there is a really large gap between what is academically relevant and what is practically relevant. The same goes for what is academically accepted and what is practically accepted. So, I have two academic supervisors and some stakeholders in the organisation, and I make sure that, through engagement with them all, that they all know what I’m doing, what I’m going to do and what they can expect (R5: 131–139).
If we write a paper, we always send it to the firm… ‘This is what we are going to submit. Do you agree? Yes or no?’ Not content-wise, because that is out of the discussion, but in the way that for example, the business setting or the firm setting is described (R8: 355–362).
4.2.3 The need for strategic interdependence
Data access is the most important asset they gave us. Even in this case, that if they didn’t finance the research position, the PhD position, then we would still go ahead with financing for the PhD in any other way, because, you know, getting financing is less difficult than finding good data access (R8: 82–85).
Yeah, well, that’s the difficult thing… I am the only academic working there. That makes it very difficult, I think, because they don’t understand really the university and the academic world and how research is conducted. I wanted to explain it to them, but it’s very hard. I mean, they don’t understand. And I am the first PhD there (PhD2: 105–108).
And I think still today we notice that… I think there is one particular firm that we work together the most. But for the other ones it remains a little bit hard to keep them on board, to keep them interested. We had another network meeting, two months ago; again, not all parties were presented, but most of them were present; also, the big corporations were there. Especially the multinational corporation leading in building wind farms is for us important party, not only because it is a big and important firm, but they are basically the firm making the decisions that we are actually focusing on in our research (R13: 255–262).
Well, they’ve developed a product, they don’t have that much knowledge about how to interact with the customer and let them design their own home, but it could be useful in that setting as well. So, I had a research question, I thought it could them in maturing their concept. So, we just contacted them, and they were interested (R4: 26–30).
(…) if you have a good student, it catches some low-hanging fruits, yeah, companies are happy. Not everybody sees the difference between more consultancy-like work of a Master’s student and real scientific stuff. You know that most companies are short term thinking, so if they get some short-term results, they’re happy. So, if you make some kind of combination of Bachelor or Master’s students and a PhD student, who also take care that papers are written, that works pretty well so far (R14: 97–102).
5 Discussion
Selection phase | Execution phase |
---|---|
Autonomy in choosing collaborations that first meet the research interest seems to drive the researchers’ project selection Project selection was mostly strategically planned or on that end of the continuum Pure opportunity-driven strategic behaviour was less present; some research subjects or fields involved practitioner-oriented deliverables The contact was mostly established owing to a researcher’s network rather than a formal selection process In most cases, there was an agreement between project partners concerning the research direction and project deliverables, which set a project focus and minimised ambiguity or friction | Researcher autonomy increased in the project execution phase, particularly owing to the trust earned from the firm We distinguish between two autonomy types: operational (concerning formalisation and operational management of projects) and academic (scientific integrity, methods, etc.) Researcher operational autonomy was medium or high Academic autonomy was fairly high, since decision-making and seeking agreement were seen as an organic path through which the mutual outcome focus of partners would resolve dissimilarities along the way Strategic interdependence among all researchers can be seen as medium to high Strategic interdependence was maintained owing to agreement on a focused research direction, flexible research conduct, and the partners’ general commitment to the project deliverables Ph.D. researcher autonomy was constrained by the project boundaries. Their autonomy was more limited than that of their supervisors in relation to the industrial partners if they were embedded in the partner organisation Valuable outputs for all partners can be generated via both academically accepted and practitioner-oriented project deliverables within the scope of the particular research collaboration and supporting Bachelor and Master’s level projects |
Proposition 1: Practice-oriented researchers are more likely to select projects in an opportunity-driven way, while theory development-oriented researchers will select projects in a strategically planned way.
Proposition 2a: Researchers will give up some operational autonomy, i.e. accept some formalisation in setting clear goals and in instituting a delivery plan in the selection phase, and they will manage both partners’ expectations in the execution phase, if the perceived benefits of formalisation are high.
Proposition 2b: Researchers with high scientific autonomy and, thus flexibility, will perform better and are more likely to complete collaborative projects on time.
Proposition 3a: Researchers are willing to accept more influence and restrictions on their autonomy from industrial partners to gain resources for their future research.
Proposition 3b: Researchers are willing to accept more influence and restrictions on their autonomy from industrial partners to build trust with the industrial partner and have greater autonomy in the future.
Proposition 4: Opportunity-driven behaviour leads to consulting-driven projects and delays research (less successful research partnerships).
Proposition 5: A stronger need for strategic interdependence (resources) by the industry partner leads to greater involvement and commitment by this partner, and thus to more successful U-I research partnerships.