Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy

Policy Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 215-230

  Gulbrandsen, Magnus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Boundary organizations; Hybrid organizations; Policy cultures; Science policy

Indexed keywords

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY APPROACH; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 80055035795     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-011-9128-4     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Audretsch, D. B., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155-203.
2. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28(4), 397-422.
3. Cole, G. A. (1979). Classifying research units by patterns of performance and influence: A typology of the Round 1 data. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity the effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 353-404). Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Unesco.
4. Crow, M. M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design. R&D laboratories in the U. S. national innovation system. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
5. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
6. Doern, G. B., & Kinder, J. S. (2002). Strategic science in the public interest: Canadas government laboratories and science-based agencies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
7. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122-136.
8. Elzinga, A. (1985). Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system. The public policies of the home of scientists. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell International.
9. Elzinga, A., & Jamison, A. (1995). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In S. Jasanoff, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
11. Fransman, M. (2001). Designing Dolly: Interactions between economics, technology and science and the evolution of hybrid institutions. Research Policy, 30, 263-273.
12. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
13. Gulbrandsen, M. (2008). The co-evolution of research institutes with universities and user needs: A historical perspective. In Eli. Moen (Ed.), Science and society relationships in the age of globalization: Past reforms and future challenges (pp. 188-213). Oslo: Research Council of Norway.
14. Gulbrandsen, M., & Larsen, I. M. (2000). Forholdet mellom næringslivet og UoH-sektoren: et krevende mangfold. Oslo: NIFU, Report 7/2000.
15. Gulbrandsen, M., & Nerdrum, L. (2009). Public sector research and industrial innovation in Norway: A historical perspective. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & B. Verspagen (Eds.), Innovation, path-dependency, and policy: The Norwegian case (pp. 61-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87-111.
17. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26, 399-408.
18. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567-586.
19. Kallerud, E. (2002). Vitenskap, teknologi og makt-fire perspektiver på evaluering. In B. Stensaker (Ed.), Kunnskaps-og teknologivurdering. Perspektiver, metoder og refleksjoner (pp. 31-54). Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
20. Karré, P. M., van der Steen, M., & van Twist, M. (2008). On the road to total hybridisation? Eroding dichotomies in public service provision. Paper presented at the workshop Innovation and change through alliances in the service, public and education sectors, Suffolk University, Boston MA, 25-27 June 2008.
21. Larédo, P. (2003). Six major challenges facing public intervention in higher education, science, technology and innovation. Science and Public Policy, 32.
22. Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (Eds.). (2001). Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
23. Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2004). Public-sector research: A growing role in innovation systems. Minerva, 42, 11-27.
24. Lynn, L. H., Mohan Reddy, N., & Aram, J. D. (1996). Linking technology and institutions: The innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25, 91-106.
25. Ménard, C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 345-376.
26. Miller, C. (2001). Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26, 478-500.
27. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209-239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Nerdrum, L., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2009). The technical-industrial research institutes in the Norwegian innovation system. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & B. Verspagen (Eds.), Innovation, path-dependency, and policy: The Norwegian case (pp. 327-348). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32, 1081-1104.
30. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201.
31. Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 447-469.
33. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (1999). Prediction in science and policy. Technology in Society, 21, 121-133.
34. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5-16.
35. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171-193.
36. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
37. Trist, E. (1972). Types of output mix of research organizations and their complementarity. In A. B. Cherns (Ed.), Social science and government: Politics and problems (pp. 101-138). London: Tavistock Publications.
38. Whitley, R. (2002). Developing innovative competences: The role of institutional frameworks. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 497-528.
39. Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy, 32, 1015-1029.
40. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269-296.