IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study


  • Craig Boardman
  • Barry Bozeman


The vast majority of research collaboration among firms is informal. Unfortunately, little research has focused on informal, multi-institutional research collaboration, partly because by their very nature these collaborations are difficult to study systematically. In this study, we employ case study methodology to examine a large-scale research collaboration, the 2000 Texas Air Quality Study, which could be labeled 'multi-sector, multi-institution' and 'informal.' We develop the case based on a contingency model of research collaboration effectiveness, our chief objective being to assess the impact of various characteristics of the collaboration on the project's outcomes. We find the case to align with the terms of the model, thereby distilling some implications for a theory of research collaboration effectiveness, at least within the domain of large-scale, multi-institutional, multi-sector research collaborations.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:51-69 DOI: 10.1080/1043859042000332196

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Hagedoorn, John & Link, Albert N. & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2000. "Research partnerships1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 567-586, April.
    2. Gamal Atallah, 2003. "Information sharing and the stability of cooperation in research joint ventures," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 531-554.
    3. Bozeman, Barry & Klein, Hans K., 1999. "The case study as research heuristic: lessons from the R&D value mapping project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-103.
    4. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1986. "The Architecture of Economic Systems: Hierarchies and Polyarchies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 716-727, September.
    5. Becker, Wolfgang & Dietz, Jurgen, 2004. "R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms--evidence for the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 209-223, March.
    6. Mowery, David C. & Oxley, Joanne E. & Silverman, Brian S., 1998. "Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 507-523, September.
    7. Lee G. Branstetter & Mariko Sakakibara, 2002. "When Do Research Consortia Work Well and Why? Evidence from Japanese Panel Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 143-159, March.
    8. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Deepak K. Sinha & Michael A. Cusumano, 1991. "Complementary Resources and Cooperative Research: A Model of Research Joint Ventures Among Competitors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(9), pages 1091-1106, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Perry, Sara Jansen & Hunter, Emily M. & Currall, Steven C., 2016. "Managing the innovators: Organizational and professional commitment among scientists and engineers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1247-1262.
    2. Elizabeth Corley & Monica Gaughan, 2005. "Scientists’ Participation in University Research Centers: What are the Gender Differences?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 371-381, October.


    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:taf:ecinnt:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:51-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.