Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:08:12.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientists, Career Choices and Organisational Change: Managing Human Resources in Cross Sector R&D Organisations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2016

Tim Turpin ,
Sam Garrett-Jones  and
Kieren Diment
Tim Turpin
Affiliation:
Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies (AEGIS), University of Western Sydney, Ph: + 61 2 8255 6230, Fax: + 61 2 8255 6222, Email: t.turpin@uws.edu.au
Sam Garrett-Jones
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong, Ph: + 61 2 4221 4359, Fax: + 61 2 4227 2785, Email: sgarrett@uow.edu.au
Kieren Diment
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong, Ph: +61 2 4221 4874, Fax: + 61 2 4227 2785, Email: kdiment@uow.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The resource-based view of the firm has drawn attention to the role of human resources in building innovative capacity within firms. In ‘high technology’ firms, scientific capability is a critical factor in achieving international competitiveness. Science, however, is a costly business and many firms are entering into cross-sector R&D partnerships in order to gain access to leading edge scientific capability. The Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program is typical of the ways many governments are seeking to promote such cross-sector R&D collaboration. Scientists are key resources in these organisational arrangements. However, there is only fragmentary information available about why and when scientists choose to work in these cross-sector organisations rather than others, or the impact of changing funding regimes on their career choices. Similarly, there has been little research into the impact of such partnerships and career choices on the organisations in which scientists work. This paper presents some findings from two new ARC funded studies in Australia designed to investigate the careers of scientists and the organisational and career implications of participation in cross-sector R&D collaboration. One of our findings is that CRCs may not endure as long term ‘hybrid’ organisational arrangements as some observers have suggested, but rather remain as transitional structure influencing the partners involved and the careers of scientists. This has important implications for the managers of CRCs as well as those responsible for partner organisations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , March 2005 , pp. 13 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackers, L. 2004. Managing relationships in peripatetic careers: Scientific mobility in the European Union. Women's Studies International Forum, 27: 189–201.Google Scholar
Allen, J.T., & Katz, R. 1992. Age, education and the technical ladder. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(3): 237–245.10.1109/17.156557Google Scholar
Badawy, M. 1982. Developing managerial skills in engineers and scientists. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Baird, I., & Thomas, H. 1985. Towards a contingency model of strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 10: 230–243.Google Scholar
Behrens, T. R. & Gray, D.O. 1999. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30: 179–199.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., & Wittmer, D. 2001. Technical roles and success of US federal laboratory-industry partnerships. Science and Public Policy, 28(4): 169–178.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. & Gaughan, M. 2001. Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7/8): 716–740.10.1504/IJTM.2001.002988Google Scholar
Bun, C. K., & Chung, K. Y. 2003. Science's workings and scientists' work. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31(2): 271–285.Google Scholar
Chaterji, D. 1993. Emerging challenges for R&D executives: An American perspective. R&D Management, 23(3): 239–47.Google Scholar
Coady, T. 2000. Why universities matter. Melbourne: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Coombs, J. G., & Ketchen, J.R.D. J. 1999. Explaining inter-firm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 867–888.Google Scholar
Corley, E., Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. 2003. Evaluating the impacts of grants on women scientists' careers: The curriculum vitae as a tool for research assessment. In Shapira, P. & Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–1121.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 1997. Universities in the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of academic-industry-government relations. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Feller, I. 1997. Technology transfer from universities. In Smart, J.C. (Ed.) Higher education handbook of theory and research. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Garrett-Jones, S., & Turpin, T. 2002. Measuring the outcomes of the CRC program: A framework - final report, http://www.crc.gov.au/Docs/pdf/Outcomes_Study_text.pdf. Accessed May 2002.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hellstrom, T., & Jacob, M. 2000. Emerging issues in R&D evaluation: The case of university-industry partnership networks. In Jacob, M. & Hellstrom, T. (Eds.), The future of knowledge production in the academy: 95–105. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, S., & Turpin, T. 1995. Cultures in collision: The changing face of academic research cultures. In Strathern, M. (Ed.), The uses of knowledge: global and local relations. The reshaping of anthropology, volume 1 - shifting contexts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howard Partners. 2003. Evaluation of the cooperative research centres programme. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
Illing, D. 2004. Unis buck at rising project dollars. The Australian, Higher Education Supplement, 31st 03 2004.Google Scholar
Jacob, M. 1997. Life in the triple helix: The contract researcher. The contract researcher, the university and the knowledge society. Science Studies, 10(2): 35–49.Google Scholar
Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T., Adler, N., & Norrgren, F. 2000. From sponsorship to partnership in academy-industry relations. R&D Management, 30(3): 255–262.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Cha, J. 2000. Career orientations of R&D professionals in Korea. R&D Management, 30(2): 121–137.Google Scholar
Laudel, G. 2003. Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help? Scientometrics, 57(2): 215–237.Google Scholar
Marceau, J., Turpin, T., & Woolley, R. (2004). Innovation agents and innovation tracks: The place of research scientists in the Australian national system of innovation. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004 on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 06 14-16, 2004 available at www.druid.dkGoogle Scholar
Marginson, S. 1994. Markets in higher education: Australia. In Smyth, J. (Ed.), Academic Work. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, G., & Bromley, P. 1999. Risk and return in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 330–339.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, B. 2000. Institutions and forms of coordination in innovation systems. Organizational Studies, 21(5): 915–939.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. 2001. Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Payne, R. 1987. Individual difference and performance amongst R&D professionals: Some implications for management development. R&D Management, 17(3): 153–161.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. 2004. It's the end of an era for CRC influence. Australian Financial Review, 2nd02 2004.Google Scholar
Rogers, J.D., 2001. Software's “functional coding” and personnel mobility in technology transfer: Linkage fields between industry and publicly funded research. Research Paper, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sommer, J. 2000. Year 2000 survey of scientists: Report of results. Project Report, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC.Google Scholar
Turpin, T., & Deville, A. 1995. Occupational roles and expectations of research scientists and research managers in scientific research institutions. R&D Management, 25(2): 141–157.Google Scholar
Turpin, T. 1999. Managing the boundaries of collaborative research: A contribution from cultural theory. International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3): 232–245.Google Scholar
Van der Walt, T., & Blankley, W. 1999. South African strategies for the promotion of research and technology innovation: Towards effective collaboration and new business development. Industry and Higher Education, 02Google Scholar
Washburn, J. 2005. Selling out: Shouldn't we be pleased that universities are increasingly business minded? Far from it. New Scientist, 185(2486): 19–20.Google Scholar
Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.) 2000. Practising interdisciplinary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. 2004. The impact of innovation capabilities on firm performance: An empirical study on industrial firms in China's transitional economy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wollongong, NSW.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. 1994. Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. 1996. “Postacademic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 1.Google Scholar