Erratum to On Being all Things to all People: Boundary Organizations and the Contemporary Research University ((2012), 42, 2, (262-289), 10.1177/0306312711435833);On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 262-289

  Parker, John ^a   Crona, Beatrice ^b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b STOCKHOLM RESILIENCE CENTRE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

boundary organizations; environmental policy; essential tensions; science policy interactions; university research centers

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858270284     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312712460483     Document Type: Erratum

References (50)

1. Agrawala S,Broad K,Guston DH.Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: Challenges to an emergent boundary organization.Science Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:454-477.
2. Altheide DL.Reflections: ethnographic content analysis.Qualitative Sociology. 1987;10:65-77.
3. One University in many places: Transitional design to twenty-first century excellence. 2004;:.
4. BoardmanC (2006) University research centers and the composition of academic work. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
5. Boardman C,Bozeman B.Role strain in university research centers.Journal of Higher Education. 2007;78:430-463.
6. Box S,Cotgrove S.Scientific identity, occupational selection, and role strain.British Journal of Sociology. 1966;17:20-28.
7. Cash DW.'In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information': Agricultural extension and boundary organizations.Science Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:431-453.
8. Cash DW,Clark WC,Alcock F,Dickson NM,Eckley N,Guston DH, et al.Knowledge systems for sustainable development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003;100:8086-8091.
9. Crona BI,Parker JN.Network determinants of knowledge utilization: Lessons from a boundary organization.Science Communication. 2011;:.
10. CrowM (2007) Research universities during the long twilight of the stone age. Rocky Mountain Sustainability Summit, University of Colorado, Boulder (21February). Available at: www.president.asu.edu/files/2007_0212StoneAge.pdf (accessed 15 December 2011).
11. Davenport S and Leitch S (2005) The role of boundary organizations in maintaining separation in the triple helix. Triple Helix 5 Conference, Turin, Italy (18-21 May).
12. Eisenhardt KM.Agency theory: An assessment and review.Academy of Management Review. 1989;14:57-74.
13. Etzkowitz H,Leydesdorff LUniversities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London and New York: Pinter; 1997:.
14. Etzkowitz H,Leydesdorff L.The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations.Research Policy. 2000;29:109-123.
15. Funtowicz S,Ravetz J.Science for the post normal age.Futures. 1993;25:735-755.
16. Geisler E and Rubenstein AH (1989) University-industry relations: A review of major issues. In: Link AN, Tassey G (eds) Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry-University-Government Relationship. Boston: Kluwer, 43-65.
17. Gibbons M,Limoges C,Nowotny H,Schwartzman S,Scott P,Trow MThe New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage; 1994:.
18. Gieryn TFCultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999:.
19. Guston DH.Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization.Social Studies of Science. 1999;29:87-111.
20. Guston DH.Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction.Science Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:299-408.
21. GustonDHClarkWCCashDWMoserSPowersC (2000) Report of the workshop on boundary organizations in environmental policy and science. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (April). Available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/gea/pubs/huru1.pdf (accessed 15 December 2011).
22. Hackett EJ (1997) Peer review in science and science policy. In: Frankel MS and Cave J (eds) Evaluating Science and Scientists. Budapest: Central European University Press, 51-60.
23. Hackett EJ.Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research.Social Studies of Science. 2005;35:787-826.
24. Hackett EJ and Parker JN (2011) Leadership of scientific groups. In: Bainbridge WS (ed.) Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 165-174.
25. Hellström T,Jacob M.Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction.Science and Public Policy. 2003;30:235-238.
26. Keating TJ.Lessons from the recent history of the health effects institute.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:409-430.
27. Klerkx L,Leeuwis C.Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries.Food Policy. 2008a;33:260-276.
28. Klerkx L,Leeuwis C.Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization.Science and Public Policy. 2008b;35:183-196.
29. Kumar N,Stern LW,Anderson JC.Conducting interorganizational research using key informants.Academy of Management Journal. 1993;36:1633-1651.
30. McNie EC.Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature.Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10:17-38.
31. Miller C.Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime.Science Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:478-500.
32. Mitchell RK,Agle BR,Wood DJ.Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.Academy of Management Review. 1997;22:853-886.
33. National Science Foundation (2009) Decision making under uncertainty collaborative groups (DMUU). Program Solicitation NSF 09-154 (14 July). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09544/nsf09544.htm (accessed 5 December 2011).
34. Nowotny H,Scott P,Gibbons MRe-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity; 2001:.
35. O'Mahony S,Bechky BA.Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies.Administrative Science Quarterly. 2008;53:422-459.
36. Parker JN (2010) Integrating the social into the ecological: Organizational and research group challenges. In: Parker JN, Vermeulen N and Penders B (eds) Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. London: Ashgate.
37. Parker JN,Hackett EJ.Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements.American Sociological Review. 2012;:.
38. Rittel HWJ,Webber MM.Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences. 1973;4:155-169.
39. Rockström J,Steffen W,Noone K,Persson A,Chapin FS,Lambin EF, et al.A safe operating space for humanity.Nature. 2009;461:472-475.
40. Rod MR,Paliwoda SJ.Multi-sector collaboration: A stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture.Science and Public Policy. 2003;30:273-284.
41. Sarewitz D,Pielke J.The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science.Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10:5-16.
42. Schneider AL.Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistance? Examples from juvenile justice.American Review of Public Administration. 2009;39:60-79.
43. Star SL,Griesemer JR.Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19:387-420.
44. Stokes D. E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press.
45. Tuunainen J.Reconsidering the Mode 2 and triple helix: A critical comment based on a case study.Science Studies. 2002;15:36-58.
46. Tuunainen J.When disciplinary worlds collide: The organizational ecology of disciplines in a university department.Symbolic Interaction. 2005a;28:205-228.
47. Tuunainen J.Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university.Social Studies of Science. 2005b;35:173-210.
48. Tuunainen J,Knuuttila T.Intermingling academic and business activities: A new direction for science and universities?.Science Technology, & Human Values. 2009;34:684-704.
49. Weingart P,Stehr NPracticing Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2000:.
50. White DD,Wutich A,Larson KL,Gober P,Lant T,Senneville C.Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater.Science and Public Policy. 2010;37:219-232.