Managing for success in international scientific collaborations: Views from Canadian government senior science managers

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 349-364

  Isabelle, Diane A ^a   Heslop, Louise A ^b  

^a NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOVERNMENT; INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PERCEPTION; POLITICAL POWER; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

CANADA;

EID: 79959862738     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234211X12960315267534     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Aksnes D W, N Frølich and S Slipersæter 2008. Science policy and the driving forces behind the internationalisation of science: the case of Norway. Science and Public Policy, 35(6), 445-457.
2. Autio, E, A Hameri and O Vuola 2004. A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy, 33(1), 107-126.
3. Beaver, D 2001. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377.
4. Beaver, D and R Rosen 1978. Studies in scientific collaboration part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
5. Bhagat, R S, B L Kedia, P D Harveston and H C Triandis 2002. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
6. Carayannis, E G and P Laget 2004. Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public-private, EU-US R&D partnerships. R&D Management, 34(1), 17-31.
7. Christiansen, J K and M J Vendelo 2003. The role of reputation building in international R&D project collaboration. CorporateReputation Review, 5(4), 304-329.
8. Cummings, J and S Kiesler 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722.
9. Doney, P M, J P Cannon and M R Mullen 1998. Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review 23(3), 601-620.
10. Glaser, B G and A L Strauss 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publications.
11. Government of Canada 2007. Mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage. Ottawa: Industry Canada.
12. Hara, N, P Solomon, S L Kim and D H Sonnenwalk 2003. An emerging view of scientific collaboration: scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
13. Heslop, L A and N Papadopoulos 1993. Canada's high-tech problem: does anyone believe us? Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada.
14. Hickling Arthurs Low 2003. Geographic science and technology targets. Paper prepared for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Ottawa, Canada.
15. Huxham, C and P Hibbert 2005. More or less than give and take: manifested attitudes to inter-partner learning in collaboration. AIM Research Working Paper Series. Available at urlhttp://www.aimresearch.org/index.php?page=the-theory-andpractice-of-collaborative-advantage, last accessed 2 February 2011.
16. Jarratt, D G 1996. A comparison of two alternative interviewing techniques used within an integrated research design: a case study in outshopping using semi-structured and n non-directed interviewing techniques. Marketing Intelligence & Planing, 14(6), 6-15.
17. Jonkers, K and L Cruz-Castro 2010. The internationalisation of public sector research through international joint laboratories. Science and Public Policy 37(8), 559-570.
18. Katz, J S and B R Martin 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18.
19. Kotler, P and D Gertner 2002. Country as brand, product and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 249-261.
20. Laroche, M, N Papadopoulos and L A Heslop 2005. The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96-114.
21. Luukkonen, T, R J W Tijssen, O Persson and G Sivertsen 1993. The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36.
22. Mahroum, S 2005. The international policies of brain gain: a review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(2), 219-230.
23. Mayer, R C, J H Davis and F D Schoorman 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
24. McEvily, B, V Perrone and A Zaheer 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91-103.
25. Melin, G 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31-40.
26. Miles, M B and A M Huberman 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Papadopoulos, N and L A Heslop 2000. Countries as brands. Ivey Business Journal, (November/December), 30-61.
28. Papadopoulos, N and L A Heslop 2001. A review, analysis, and consolidation of research on the business image of Canada among investors and others abroad. Ottawa, Canada: Branding Secreteriat, Industry Canada.
29. Price, D J 1963. Little Science Big Science, New York and London: Columbia University Press.
30. Seidman, I 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Smith, D and J S Katz 2000. Collaborative approaches to research. Leeds, UK: Higher Education Policy Unit, University of Leeds and University of Sussex, UK. Available at urlhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.150.3185, last accessed 2 May 2011.
32. Stern, P 1996 in G Melin 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31-40.
33. UNESCO 1999. Available at url www.unesco.org, last accessed 9 August 2006.
34. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2005. What do bibliometric indicators tell us about world scientific output? UIS Bulletin on Science and Technology Statistics 2 (September 2005).
35. Van Looy, B, K Debackere, J Callaert, R Tjissen and T Van Leeuwen 2006. Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: an exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295-310.
36. Varadarajan, P R and M H Cunningham 1995. Strategic alliances: a synthesis of conceptual foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 282-296.
37. Wagner, C S 2002. The elusive partnership: science and foreign policy. Science and Public Policy, 29(6), 409-417.
38. Wagner, C S 2005. The globalization of research: understanding the dynamics of collaborative research networks. Paper presented at Conference on International Collaboration in Social Sciences Research.
39. Wagner, C S, I Brahmakulam, B Jackson, A Wong and T Yoda 2001. Science and Technology Collaboration: Building Capacity in Developing Countries? Report number MR-1357.0-WB. Santa Monica, CA: Rand and World Bank.
40. Wagner, C S and L Leydesdorff 2004. Network structure, selforganization and the growth of international collaboration in science. Unpublished paper.
41. Wagner, C S and L Leydesdorff 2005. Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185-208.
42. Wagner, C S, L Staheli, R Silberglitt, A Wong and J Kadtke 2002. Linking Effectively: Learning Lessons from Successful Collaboration in Science and Technology. Report number DB-345- OSTP. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
43. Wright, L T 1996. Exploring the in-depth interview as a qualitative research technique with American and Japanese firms. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), 59-64.
44. Zitt, M, E Bassecoulard and Y Okubo 2000. Shadows of the past in international cooperation: collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627-657.