How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers

Do men and women academic faculty vary in their research collaboration patterns and strategies? This straightforward question does not lend itself to a straightforward answer. A great many sex-correlated variables could possibly mitigate the relationship of sex and collaboration. If one finds sex-correlated differences in the number of collaborators, can one infer that there is something intrinsic to men's and women's work strategies and preferences? Or would such differences owe instead to women's and men's different positions in work structures and hierarchies? The focus here is on two sets of research collaboration variables, numbers of collaborators and the collaboration strategies employed. The study uses questionnaire data from the U.S. National Survey of Academic Scientists (n = 1714) and tests several hypotheses about collaboration numbers and strategies. Regression results indicate, counter to the core hypotheses and almost all published literature, that in a properly specified model, one taking into account such factors as tenure, discipline, family status and doctoral cohort, women actually have somewhat more collaborators on average than do men. For both men and women, those with more industrial interactions and those affiliated with university research centers have more collaborators. Men and women differ in their collaborator choice strategies. Men are more likely to be oriented to “instrumental,” and “experience” strategies, while both men and women are motivated by “mentoring” strategies. Regression analyses show that for both men and women, having a coherent collaborator choice strategy predicts the number of collaborators.     

Human capital intensity in technology-based firms located in Portugal: Does foreign ownership matter?

This paper contributes to the scarce empirical literature on the impact of foreign ownership on human capital intensity. New evidence is provided, based on a comprehensive, large-scale survey of technology-based firms located in Portugal. The key findings are that: (1) foreign ownership directly (and significantly) impacts a firm's general human capital (education); (2) foreign ownership indirectly (and significantly) impacts a firm's specific human capital (skills); (3) the total impact of foreign ownership on a firm's human capital intensity is higher for education- (general) than for skills- (specific) related human capital intensity. Giving the critical importance of both FDI and human capital development for an ‘intermediate’ economy like Portugal (lagging behind in terms of human capital stock, and seeming to have lost part of its attractiveness as an FDI location), the paper discusses related policy implications. It is believed that our results and conclusions may be useful for other countries facing similar challenges.     

How do legal surprises drive organizational attention and case resolution? An analysis of false patent marking lawsuits

Legal surprises are unexpected suits or actions in which plaintiffs rely on claims or precedents that may be obscure, unfamiliar, or unknown to the defendants. Our study explores false patent marking suits, a unique type of patent-related legal surprise involving allegations of defendants marking products with ineligible patent numbers to deceive customers and/or deter competitors. An abrupt shift in U.S. Federal Courts’ interpretation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) policy amplified plaintiff incentives for filing these suits while escalating defendant penalties for proven violations. Handling costly legal surprises such as false patent marking suits requires focused attention from managers. Our core premise is that temporal and evidential cues in the timelines and storylines of plaintiffs’ legal narratives in surprise suits attract defendants’ organizational attention. We hypothesize about temporal focus (past, present, and future) and evidentiary reasoning (relevance, credibility, and inferential power) as attention cues and possible predictors of the mode (litigation or negotiation) and timing of case resolution. We apply automated content analysis to official court records for 992 false patent marking cases (2009–2011) and quantify competing risks using hazard models. We find that differences in temporal focus and evidentiary reasoning in the legal narratives of surprise suits are significant predictors of case resolution mode and timing. We also find that defendants countersuing to redirect plaintiffs’ attention is an effective negotiating tactic. We discuss the economic significance and strategic implications of our empirical findings on legal surprises, attention, case resolution mode and timing, and the unintended consequences of IPR policy changes.     

Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?

This paper examines the impact of universities on the technological performance of adjacent firms. We extend existing research by jointly analyzing, and comparing, the effects of education (graduates) and scientific research (publications) activities of universities on firms’ technological performance. Adopting the knowledge production framework, our study is conducted at the level of 101 Italian territorial areas (provinces) and four industries. Overall, fixed-effect panel data models reveal a positive effect of both university graduates and scientific publications on the technological performance of firms. At the same time, considerable industry differences are observed. While the provision of university graduates positively affects firm performance in all industries under study, additional effects for scientific research are only observed in electrical and pharmaceutical industries that are science-intensive and where the scientific knowledge base is changing rapidly over time. The observation that spillovers from academia into the industrial texture of provinces rely on education and research in an industry-specific manner is relevant to the design of appropriate research and innovation policies.     

How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?

Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).     

How knowledge management processes can create and capture value for firms?

Knowledge has become the main competitive tool for firms. Just as knowledge is considered as the most important strategic resource, knowledge management (KM) is considered to be critical to a firm’s success. Several attempts have been undertaken to identify and define the different KM processes. From the literature review, four key dimensions stand out as affecting KM processes: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage/retrieval, and knowledge application. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the KM and value literature by determining the importance of the different processes of KM for increasing value creation and value capture in firms. The context for the research hypotheses is the Spanish banking industry in 2010. The results support a positive relationship between KM and value creation, and between value creation and value capture.     

Do subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest more in R&D than domestic firms?

Despite the growing involvement of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in foreign-based research and development (R&D), there has been little research comparing R&D investments of subsidiaries of foreign MNEs to domestic firms. Subsidiaries of foreign MNEs enjoy advantages that help them compete against domestic firms. However, when deciding on R&D investments, these advantages exert competing influences on their R&D investment decision. On the one hand, better access to and transfer of knowledge and technologies from the MNE and other subsidiaries and centers of excellence may encourage the subsidiary of a foreign MNE to invest less in R&D relative to a domestic firm. On the other hand, better access to sources of capital through the MNE and other subsidiaries may induce the subsidiary to invest more in R&D in comparison to domestic firms. We find that subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest less in total R&D than domestic firms. The reason is that they invest less in external R&D than domestic firms; however, they have similar internal R&D investments compared to domestic firms. These findings support the notion that the transfer of technology and knowledge from other parts of the MNE acts as a substitute for the purchase of external R&D while internal R&D acts as a complement to the technology and knowledge transferred from other parts of the MNE.     

How does co-authoring with a star affect scientists' productivity? Evidence from small open economies

There is increasing policy interest in the recruitment and integration of star scientists as a mechanism to catalyse research productivity. We use rich data for three Small Open Economies (Ireland, Denmark, and New Zealand) on publications, citations and co-authorships to examine how co-authorship with a co-located star scientist affects the co-author's productivity, both including and excluding the output directly co-authored with the star. The latter effect provides a measure of the extent to which star collaborations crowd out/in other output. Event-study analyses reveal that star co-authorships are associated with economically and statistically significant increases in co-authors' output (measured by field-normalized total citations). Output in the three years after the initial star co-authorship is increased by 89.6 % when star co-authored publications are included and by 16.2 % when they are excluded. The results are robust to using an alternative measure of quality-adjusted output based on journal publication quality. We find co-authoring with a star increases the quality but not quantity of output when star co-authored publications are excluded. We explore heterogeneity by period, field and whether the authors have multiple star co-authorships. We conclude that policymakers' and institutions' efforts to promote access to star scientists may have substantial direct and indirect effects on the productivity of incumbent scientists within departments.     

Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework

In this paper, we address the question of ‘Why do firms publish scientific papers?’. Research examining the competitive advantages that firms accrue from investment in R&D has provided evidence that such efforts can be associated with the voluntary disclosure of research findings in scientific publications. This form of scientific openness occurs despite potentially undermining the value-capturing process by generating knowledge spillovers and hindering the use of other instruments for protecting intellectual property (patents and secrecy). Our understanding of what leads firms to engage in scientific publishing remains relatively limited, however. We address this gap by presenting a systematic review of 164 studies examining firm publishing. We then develop a conceptual framework that outlines five incentives for firms to engage in publishing: (i) accessing external knowledge and resources; (ii) attracting and retaining researchers; (iii) supporting IP strategies; (iv) building the firm's reputation; and (v) supporting commercialization strategies. Mechanisms that relate incentives to publish to firms' major stakeholders – i.e. academia, industry, investors, users, and institutions – are also outlined in the framework. We conclude by setting out an agenda for future research.     

How do innovation systems interact? Schumpeterian innovation in seven Australian sectors

This paper analyses how and why different types of innovation systems interact through analysing seven Australian sectors. We find that there are sets of mechanisms or systems that ‘articulate’; i.e. structure and shape the interaction among sectoral innovation systems and other types of innovation systems. Drawing on the Schumpeterian and evolutionary legacy, we contribute a theoretical explanation of how interaction among innovation systems influences innovation. First, this interaction enables and enhances variety creation by expanding the new combinations of knowledge and resources a firm can achieve. Second, it allows for more efficient and effective scaling up of useful knowledge recombination to achieve increasing returns. Empirically, this is supported in that the more successful sectors have active articulation systems with alignment with other systems, while weaker sectors have unplanned and patchy linkages. No simple model seems to explain successful articulation. However, important factors are active receptor firms with the motivation and capabilities to absorb and use resources from external systems, high quality and responsive education systems, and international linkages. Public research, labour markets, and intermediaries varied in importance.     

How do Miles and Snow's strategic types differ in their knowledge assets? Evidence from Italian SMEs

This paper takes a knowledge-based view of firms and discusses the importance of linking organizational knowledge assets into corporate strategy. In order to conceptualize knowledge assets, the paper adopts the intellectual capital (IC) framework, which distinguishes three IC components: human, structural and relational capital. As regards business strategy, the paper adopts Miles and Snow's model, which identifies three strategic types of successful organizations: Defenders, Analysers and Prospectors. The paper explores the ways in which the three strategic types differ in weighting the single components of their IC. This study represents an attempt to extend the Miles and Snow typology including the aspect of knowledge assets. The link between knowledge asset management and strategy is investigated by means of three case studies conducted in Italian small and medium enterprises from the food sector. The paper argues that firms of different Miles and Snow strategic types have different mix of IC components.     

Turnaround strategies of American and Japanese electronics corporations: How do they differ in formulating plans and achieving results?

Greater competitive and economic pressures have made corporate turnaround strategies critical to the survival of many high-technology international business organizations. The traditional differences between American and Japanese firms in the areas of human resources, production, finance, and marketing have recently appeared to converge on some common strategies employed to reverse an adverse corporate situation. American and Japanese high-technology firms are examined in terms of the antecedents, actions, and results of varying levels of turnaround strategy implementation. Survey responses from American and US subsidiaries of Japanese electronics firms illustrate that significant differences exist among levels of strategy implementation in assessing the need for a turnaround strategy, the actions taken to reverse an adverse situation, and the relative success of the actions. In addition to greater capacity utilization, low turnaround plans are generally enacted by redesigning the product or process, but successful high turnaround plans are implemented most often by gain sharing or profit sharing, as well as by eliminating unprofitable products. American firms achieve greater return on investment, operating profit margin, and cash flow, but lower sales growth and less unit labor cost improvement than Japanese corporations. These results are discussed for managerial insights into the strategy formulation process of international high-technology firms for successful competitive advantage.     

Do tax incentives and direct funding enhance innovation input and output in high-tech firms?

Tax incentives and direct funding are two different public support instruments used to facilitate the formation and growth of firms. Limited empirical evidence has compared the effectiveness of two different policies and their interactions for firms. In this paper, we investigate the main and interaction effects of these interventions on high-tech firms. Since large and small firms innovate in different ways, we compare the use of both incentives by Iranian high-tech SMEs and large firms through a factorial design technique. This paper presents significant differences both across instruments and across firm size. Results show that for SMEs, tax exemption has a significant effect on R&D investment, and funding has a significant effect on R&D investment, R&D employees, and new products. However, there aren't any interaction effects between instruments. For large firms, funding is an effective instrument for R&D investment. Also, there is an interaction effect between tax incentives and direct funding on new products. These findings indicate that funding is a more effective instrument than tax exemption, especially for SMEs, but suggest some changes in supporting policies of high-tech firms in Iran.     

When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge?

Knowledge spillover occurs when recipient firms combine the knowledge of an originating firm with other knowledge. When recipient firms combine the originating firm's knowledge with knowledge that is unfamiliar to the originating firm, the recipient firms potentially provide insight to the originating firm on the viability of exploring such knowledge. By mimicking its recipient firms, the originating firm reduces the challenge and uncertainty of exploring unfamiliar knowledge domains. We examine the exploration activities of 87 telecommunications equipment manufacturers over a ten-year time period. We argue that those firms that operate in competitive and dynamic market environments promoting conservative risk-taking behavior will value such uncertainty reduction more highly and thus rely to a greater extent on their recipient firms for guidance on where to explore for new expertise. In contrast, firms in high-growth market environments are more likely to look beyond the activities of recipient firms when exploring new technological domains and rely less on mimicking their recipient firms.     

How do users cope with trial restrictions? A field experiment on free trial software

Software vendors often provide free downloads of free trial versions of software but normally with some restrictions attached (e.g., time and/or functionality restrictions). The question arises as to what extent the restrictions could influence a user’s propensity to procure the full version. This study seeks to answer this question through two important theoretical backbones: expectation-disconfirmation and coping. Based on these two theories, we built a research model of a user’s coping reactions toward software trial restrictions. A field experiment was conducted to verify the hypotheses. Results show that negative disconfirmation on time/functionality restriction positively influenced the adoption of rational thinking strategy, which in turn positively influence the level of action coping. As a result, the degree to which rational thinking and action coping strategy were exploited positively influenced a user’s willingness to pay for the full-version software. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014

The study of research funding arrangements and the production of scientific knowledge has been marked by a lack of understanding about how research funding instruments interact and how these instruments shape policy-making and research fields. To fill this research gap, this study is theoretically supported by policy feedback and policy instruments’ interaction studies. It investigates the effects of the UK's research assessment exercise in the creation of the most emblematic national thematic research program for the field of educational research in the country – the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). Based on qualitative analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and boundary-spanners, this paper shows how the research assessment exercise contributed to the creation of the TLRP and how the interaction between the two policy instruments shaped the field of educational research in England. In particular, the results show a) how the institutionalisation of the research assessment led to frame a “quality problem” in educational research that legitimated several policy initiatives, including the creation of the national thematic research programme (interpretative effects) and a shift in resources allocation (resource/incentive effects); and b) how the interaction between the two policy instruments contributed to methodological and epistemic drifts in the field of educational research.     

Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data

This study aims to evaluate whether firms located in clusters invest more intensively in research and development (R&D) than their non-clustered counterparts. Specifically, it proposes a model of firm R&D and tests empirically its implications for the effect of being located in a cluster on firm R&D intensity. The key ideas underlying the theory are as follows: (1) due either to natural excludability or to a high degree of stickiness of R&D-opportunity-bearing technological knowledge, geographical proximity per se is limited in the (automatic) spillover of knowledge with promising R&D opportunities to nearby firms; (2) geographical proximity may, however, help enhance the effectiveness or efficiency of knowledge exchange through market mechanisms (e.g., through contract R&D, R&D collaboration); (3) potential advantages (or disadvantages) in firm R&D of being located in a cluster also depend on the degree of asymmetry in technological competence among firms located in the cluster. The key ideas are supported by an empirical analysis of a multi-industry, multi-country data set compiled by the World Bank. In particular, the results show that being located in a cluster per se actually has a negative effect on firm R&D intensity, which is in contrast to the conventional wisdom of pure or automatic localized knowledge spillovers, as far as firm R&D intensity is concerned.     

How do you mean `global'? An empirical investigation of innovation networks in the multinational corporation

Literature on technological activity in the multinational corporation has recently emphasized the overall advantages from establishing internationally dispersed technological capabilities. This paper builds a taxonomy of innovation networks in the multinational corporation, differentiating between international duplication and international diversification of advanced technological capabilities. Cluster analysis of major Swedish multinationals suggests significant differences in the geographical dispersion of technological capabilities, implying different approaches to the upgrading of competitive advantage and unequal pre-conditions for becoming engaged in internationally integrated research efforts.     

How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “Pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field

This article aimed to identify the effect of university-industry (U-I) collaborations on the innovative performance of firms operating in the advanced materials field, and by doing so, it proposed an original classification of the research organization partners. The main contribution resides in the estimation of the role played by collaborations with differently experienced scientists. In contrast with previous studies, whose empirical setting was the life science industry, in the advanced materials industry the most effective collaborations are not with “Star scientists”, but with “Pasteur scientists”. The latter concept was empirically tested first by the authors of this article, to deepen the present understanding of industrial heterogeneity in innovation processes and to offer new insights for the formulation of corporate innovation strategies. The results of the estimation of a negative binomial regression model applied to a sample of 455 firms active in the photocatalysis in Japan confirm the idea that engaging in research collaborations, measured as co-invention, with “Pasteur scientists” increases firms’ R&D productivity, measured as number of registered patents. In contrast, we found that firms’ collaborations with “Star scientists” exert little impact on their innovative output.