IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i5p905-916..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Annina Lattu
  • Yuzhuo Cai

Abstract

As an emerging agenda in science and public policy discourse, the open science (OS) movement has affected university–industry research collaboration (UIRC) including normative changes concerning actors’ value and belief systems. Thus, the following questions have become pertinent: what are the norms and beliefs of key actors engaged in UIRC regarding OS practices? How have the norms and beliefs led to tensions in UIRC and dynamics facilitating or impeding OS? This study explores these questions through two case studies by applying institutional logics theory as an analytical lens. Through analysing case studies concerning UIRC in Finland, a pioneer in the global OS movement, six institutional logics that are either pro- or contra-OS practices were identified: the state, market, corporation, profession, traditional trust–based community and sustainability-based community logics. The strongest tensions are between the state and market logics and between the profession and market logics. In the end of the study, recommendations are solicited for OS policymakers and practitioners based on the research findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Annina Lattu & Yuzhuo Cai, 2023. "Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(5), pages 905-916.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:5:p:905-916.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad037
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    2. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    3. J Alberto Molina & J Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & José A Cuesta & Carlos Gracia-Lazaro & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sanchez, 2013. "Gender Differences in Cooperation: Experimental Evidence on High School Students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Sotaro Shibayama, 2012. "Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 508-531, August.
    5. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    2. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    3. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    4. Molina, José Alberto & Ferrer, Alfredo & Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Gracia-Lazaro, Carlos & Moreno, Yamir & Sanchez, Angel, 2016. "The Effect of Kinship on Intergenerational Cooperation: A Lab Experiment with Three Generations," IZA Discussion Papers 9842, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    7. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.
    8. Eugenia Perez Vico & Sylvia Schwaag Serger & Emily Wise & Mats Benner, 2017. "Knowledge Triangle Configurations at Three Swedish Universities," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 68-82.
    9. Magnus Gulbrandsen & Taran Thune, 2017. "The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 795-813, August.
    10. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    11. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2024. "Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. José Molina, 2013. "Altruism in the household: in kind transfers in the context of kin selection," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 309-312, September.
    13. Hugo Pinto & Manuel Fernández-Esquinas, 2013. "Exploring knowledge-transfer dynamics in a South European region: breadth, intensity and informality of university-industry interactions in Andalusia," Chapters, in: Tüzin Baycan (ed.), Knowledge Commercialization and Valorization in Regional Economic Development, chapter 10, pages 209-237, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Lorenzo Compagnucci & Francesca Spigarelli, 2018. "Fostering Cross-Sector Collaboration to Promote Innovation in the Water Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Zhang, Yi & Chen, Kaihua, 2022. "Network growth dynamics: The simultaneous interaction between network positions and research performance of collaborative organisations," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    16. Berendes, S. & Hilpert, S. & Günther, S. & Muschner, C. & Candas, S. & Hainsch, K. & van Ouwerkerk, J. & Buchholz, S. & Söthe, M., 2022. "Evaluating the usability of open source frameworks in energy system modelling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    17. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Modena, Francesca & Rettore, Enrico & Tanzi, Giulia Martina, 2022. "Asymmetries in the gender effect of high-performing peers: Evidence from tertiary education," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Erikson, Truls & Knockaert, Mirjam & Foo, Maw Der, 2015. "Enterprising scientists: The shaping role of norms, experience and scientific productivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 211-221.
    20. Guilfoos, Todd & Kurtz, Kenneth J., 2017. "Evaluating the role of personality trait information in social dilemmas," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 119-129.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:5:p:905-916.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.