The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university

Scandinavian Journal of Management

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 107-120

  Styhre, Alexander ^a   Lind, Frida ^a  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Entrepreneurial university; Industry university collaborations; Soft bureaucracy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953807395     PISSN: 09565221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2009.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adler P.S. Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science 2001, 12(2):215-234.
2. Anderson G. Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization 2008, 15(2):251-270.
3. Augier M., Teece D.J. Perspectives on research and development: Organizing and managing innovation in a (global) knowledge-based economy. Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers 2007, 198-212. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. K. Ichijo, I. Nonaka (Eds.).
4. Barley S.R., Kunda G. Gurus, warm bodies and hired guns: Itinerant experts in the knowledge economy 2004, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Bartunek J.M. Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management 2007, 50(6):1323-1333.
6. Bell D. The coming post-industrial society 1973, Basic Books, New York.
7. Bercovitz J., Feldman M. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 2008, 19(1):69-89.
8. Bernadette Bensaude-V., Stengers I. A history of chemistry, trans. by Deborah van Dam 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge & London.
9. Boardman P.C., Corley E.A. University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy 2008, 37:900-913.
10. Boardman C., Ponomariov B.L. Reward systems and NSF university research centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists' valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. Journal of Higher Education 2007, 78(1):51-70.
11. Bozeman B., Boardman C. The NSF engineering research centers and the university-industry research revolution: A brief history featuring an interview with Erich Bloch. Journal of Technology Transfer 2004, 29:365-375.
12. Burton-Jones A. Knowledge capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Courpasson D. Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization studies 2000, 21(1):141-161.
14. Croissant J.L., Smith-Doerr L. Organizational contexts of science: Boundaries and relationships between university and industry. Handbook of science and technology studies 2008, 691-718. The MIT Press, Cambridge & London. 3rd. ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (Eds.).
15. Dierickx I., Cool K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 1989, 35(12):1504-1511.
16. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new industry-university linkages. Research Policy 1998, 27:823-833.
17. Etzkowitz H. Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 2003, 32:109-121.
18. Ferlie E., Ashburner L., Fitzgerald L., Pettigrew A. The new public management in action 1996, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York.
19. Frank D.J., Meyer J.W. University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and Society 2007, 36:287-311.
20. Galison P. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics 1997, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.
21. Galison P. Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. The science studies reader 1999, 137-160. Routledge, London & New York. M. Biagioli (Ed.).
22. The new production of knowledge 1994, Sage, London. M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, H. Nowotny, M. Trow, P. Scott (Eds.).
23. Gibson C.B., Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 2004, 47(2):209-226.
24. Granberg A., Jacobsson S. Myth or reality-A scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate. Science and Public Policy 2006, 33(5):321-340.
25. Gouldner A.W. Patterns of industrial democracy 1954, The Free Press, Glencoe.
26. Habermas J. Knowledge and human interest 1968, Heineman, London.
27. Harvey J., Pettigrew A., Ferlie E. The determinants of research group performance. Towards Mode 2. Journal of Management Studies 2002, 39(6):747-774.
28. Hessels L.K., van Lente H. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 2008, 37:740-760.
29. Jermier J.M., Slocum J.W., Fry L.W., Gaines J. Organizational subcultures in a soft bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and façade of an official culture. Organization Science 1992, 2(2):170-194.
30. Kärreman D., Svenningson S., Alvesson M. The return of the machine bureaucracy? Management control in the work setting of professionals. International Studies of Management & Organization 2002, 32(2):70-92.
31. Kellogg K.C., Orlikowski W.J., Yates J.A. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science 2006, 17(1):22-44.
32. Lam A. Knowledge networks and careers. Academic scientists in industry-university links. Journal of Management Studies 2007, 44(6):993-1016.
33. Lane J.-E. New public management 2000, Routledge, London & New York.
34. Le Goff, J. ([1985]1993). Intellectuals in the middle ages. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell.
35. Louis K.S., Blumenthal D., Gluck M.E., Stoto M.A. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviour among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 1989, 34(1):110-131.
36. MacLean D., MacIntosh R., Grant S. Mode 2 management research. British Journal of Management 2002, 13:189-207.
37. Markides C. In search of ambidextrous professors. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50(4):762-768.
38. Mintzberg H. Structure in fives 1983, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
39. Mowery D.C., Ziedonis A.A. Academic patent quality before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy 2002, 31:399-418.
40. Murray F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue economics. Research Policy 2002, 31:1389-1403.
41. Murray F. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy 2004, 33:643-659.
42. Nerkar A., Shane S. Determinants of invention commercialization: An empirical examination of academically sourced inventions. Strategic Management Journal 2007, 28:1155-1166.
43. Osbourne T. On mediators: Intellectuals and ideas trade in the knowledge economy. Economy and Society 2004, 33(4):430-447.
44. Pisano G.O. Science business: The promise, the reality and the future of biotech 2006, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
45. Powell W.W., Grodal S. Networks of innovation. The Oxford handbook of innovation 2005, 56-85. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (Eds.).
46. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., White D.R., Owen-Smith J. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 2005, 110(4):1132-1205.
47. Powell W.W., Snellman K. The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology 2004, 30:199-220.
48. Rafferty M. The Bayh-Dole act and university research and development. Research Policy 2008, 37:29-40.
49. Reed M. Beyond the iron cage? Bureaucracy and the democracy in the knowledge economy and society. The values of bureaucracy 2005, 115-140. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. P. Du Gay (Ed.).
50. Rothaermel F.T., Agung S.D., Jiang L. University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 2007, 16(4):691-791.
51. Siegel D.S., Wright M., Lockett A. The rise of the entrepreneurial activities at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 2007, 16(4):489-504.
52. Smith H.L., Bagni-sen S. University-industry interactions: The case of UK biotechnology. Industry & Innovation 2006, 13(4):371-392.
53. Smith Hughes S. Making dollars out of DNA: The first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. Isis 2001, 92(3):541-575.
54. Starkey K., Madan P. Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management 2001, 12.
55. Swann J.P. Academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry 1988, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London.
56. Thrift N. Knowing capitalism 2005, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi.
57. Toker U., Gray D.O. Innovation spaces. Workspace planning and innovation in U. S. university research centers. Research Policy 2008, 37:309-329.
58. Touraine A. The post-industrial society. Tomorrow's social history: Classes, conflicts and culture in the programmed society, Trans. by L. F. X. Mayhew 1971, Random House, New York.
59. Tushman M.L., O'Reilly C.A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 1996, 38(4):8-30.
60. Vestergaard J. The entrepreneurial university revisited: Conflicts and the importance of role separation. Social Epistemology 2007, 21(1):41-54.
61. Washburn J. University Inc.: The corruption of higher education 2005, Basic Books, New York.
62. Weber M. Bureaucracy, in From Max Weber: Essays in sociology 1948, 196-244. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. H.H. Gerth, C. Wright Mills (Eds.).
63. Weber M. The methodology of the social sciences 1949, Free Press, New York.
64. Weick K.E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 1976, 21:1-19.
65. Youtie J., Libaers D., Bozeman B. Institutionalization of university research centers: The case of the national cooperative program in infertility research. Technovation 2006, 26(9):1055-1063.
66. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Armstrong J.S. Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science 2002, 48(1):138-153.