Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience
Research collaboration is a key mechanism for linking distributed knowledge and competencies into novel ideas and research venues. The need for effective inter-institutional knowledge flows is of particular importance in emerging domains of research, and also a challenge for public research systems with a high degree of institutional differentiation. Motivated by concerns about favorable institutional conditions for the conduct of scientific research, we analyze research collaboration in the emergent domain of nanoscience within the highly segmented German public research system. Drawing on multiple data sources, such as co-publications, macro research statistics, and in-depth interviews, we identify governance structures that support or hinder scientists' efforts to engage in collaborative work relations across institutional boundaries.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Grit Laudel, 2002. "What do we measure by co-authorships?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15, April.
- Kuhlmann, Stefan, 2001. "Future governance of innovation policy in Europe -- three scenarios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 953-976, June.
- Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
- J Calvert & P Patel, 2003. "University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 85-96, April.
- Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil, 1998. "The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 901-913, December.
- Melin, Goran, 2000. "Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 31-40, January.
- Hagedoorn, John & Link, Albert N. & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2000. "Research partnerships1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 567-586, April.
- Heinze, Thomas & Bauer, Gerrit, 2006. "Characterizing creative scientists in nano S & T: productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 11, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
- Scheu, M. & Veefkind, V. & Verbandt, Y. & Galan, E. Molina & Absalom, R. & Förster, W., 2006. "Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 204-211, September.
- Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
- Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
- Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 1998. "What are institutional boundaries and how can they be overcome? Germany's collaborative research centres as boundary-spanning networks," Discussion Papers, Working Group Transformation of Science Systems P 98-401, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
- Martin Lengwiler, 2006. "Between charisma and heuristics: four styles of interdisciplinarity," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(6), pages 423-434, July.
- Hohn, Hans-Willy, 1998. "Kognitive Strukturen und Steuerungsprobleme der Forschung: Kernphysik und Informatik im Vergleich," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 36, number 36.
- Corley, Elizabeth A. & Boardman, P. Craig & Bozeman, Barry, 2006. "Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 975-993, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:5:p:888-899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.