IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v16y2005i5p550-559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational Science and the NSF: Funding for Mutual Benefit

Author

Listed:
  • Mariann Jelinek

    (College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795)

  • Terri L. Griffith

    (Leavey School of Business, P.O. Box 8795, Santa Clara University, St. Joseph’s Hall 116, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95053)

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary federal agency funding nonmedical research in the United States. However, relatively few organizational researchers consider approaching the agency, despite the funds it has available. It is easy to understand why: The agency has a reputation for preferring “hard science” and quantitative approaches, and there is no obvious home for organizational studies in the agency. NSF programs appear to recognize psychological and small-group research on the one hand, and sociological research on the other, with little emphasis on organizations. There are, however, several programs that have funded research on organizations, or relevant to organizations. Additionally, the NSF regularly solicits advice and direction from researchers on new directions for focus and attention.We argue that organization researchers should indeed approach NSF with robust research proposals. We provide suggestions for finding an appropriate application “home” within NSF. We also discuss the process of proposal preparation, offering suggestions on how to prepare a persuasive proposal, with comments on how the review process works. Finally, we close with a clarion call for organization researchers to help NSF understand the importance of organizations, and thus of organization research, to the whole array of the agency’s other research interests—to the effective practice of science; to organizing human activity, including economic and educational activity; and to management and governance of human activities in general. As such, we argue, NSF has a stake in organizational research—and organizational researchers have a stake in NSF.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariann Jelinek & Terri L. Griffith, 2005. "Organizational Science and the NSF: Funding for Mutual Benefit," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 550-559, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:550-559
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0155
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1050.0155?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey H. Dyer & Wujin Chu, 2003. "The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 57-68, February.
    2. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    3. Jason Owen-Smith & Walter W. Powell, 2004. "Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 5-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yumei Fu, 2023. "The impact of government funding on research innovation: An empirical analysis of Chinese universities," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 285-296, January.

    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. Kuk, George & Schaarschmidt, Mario & Homscheid, Dirk, 2024. "All of the same breed? A networking perspective of private-collective innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Felzensztein, Christian & Brodt, Susan E. & Gimmon, Eli, 2014. "Do strategic marketing and social capital really matter in regional clusters? Lessons from an emerging economy of Latin America," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 498-507.
    3. Manuela Presutti & Cristina Boari & Antonio Majocchi, 2013. "Inter-organizational geographical proximity and local start-ups' knowledge acquisition: a contingency approach," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5-6), pages 446-467, June.
    4. Andersen, Kristina Vaarst, 2013. "The problem of embeddedness revisited: Collaboration and market types," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 139-148.
    5. Haifeng Wang & Pengfei Han & Weishu Liu, 2018. "How to Improve Sustainable Competitive Advantage from the Distributor and the Supplier Networks: Evidence from the Paper-Making Industry in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    6. Yu-Shan Su & Eric Tsang & Mike Peng, 2009. "How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 309-331, June.
    7. Gregorio Rius-Sorolla & Sofía Estelles-Miguel & Carlos Rueda-Armengot, 2020. "Multivariable Supplier Segmentation in Sustainable Supply Chain Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    9. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Vigilant Interaction in Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 773-784, December.
    10. Schneider, Christian O. & Bremen, Philipp & Schönsleben, Paul & Alard, Robert, 2013. "Transaction cost economics in global sourcing: Assessing regional differences and implications for performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 243-254.
    11. M. Meuleman & S. Manigart & A. Lockett & M. Wright, 2006. "Transaction costs, behavioral uncertainty and the formation of interfirm cooperations: Syndication in the UK private equity market," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/359, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    12. Gianluca Misuraca & Clelia Colombo & Csaba Kucsera & Stephanie Carretero & Margherita Bacigalupo & Raluca Radescu, 2015. "ICT-enabled Social Innovation in support of the Implementation of the Social Investment Package (IESI) - Mapping and Analysis of ICT-enabled Social Innovation Initiatives promoting Social Investment t," JRC Research Reports JRC97467, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Philip Cooke, 2009. "The Economic Geography Of Knowledge Flow Hierarchies Among Internationally Networked Medical Bioclusters: A Scientometric Analysis," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 100(3), pages 332-347, July.
    14. Sándor Juhász, 2021. "Spinoffs and tie formation in cluster knowledge networks," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1404, April.
    15. Jorge Peña & Yannick Rochat, 2012. "Bipartite Graphs as Models of Population Structures in Evolutionary Multiplayer Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Judit Oláh & Attila Bai & György Karmazin & Péter Balogh & József Popp, 2017. "The Role Played by Trust and Its Effect on the Competiveness of Logistics Service Providers in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Cinzia Battistella & Gianluca Murgia & Fabio Nonino, 2021. "Free-driven web-based business models," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 445-486, June.
    18. Ernest Miguélez & Rosina Moreno, 2013. "Do Labour Mobility and Technological Collaborations Foster Geographical Knowledge Diffusion? The Case of European Regions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 321-354, June.
    19. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Tom Broekel & Wladimir Mueller, 2018. "Critical links in knowledge networks – What about proximities and gatekeeper organisations?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(10), pages 919-939, November.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:550-559. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.