如何制定研究议程:对科学团队领导力、学习和溢出效应的启示

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Research Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105029
Conor O'Kane , Vincent Mangematin , Jing A. Zhang , Jarrod Haar
{"title":"如何制定研究议程:对科学团队领导力、学习和溢出效应的启示","authors":"Conor O'Kane ,&nbsp;Vincent Mangematin ,&nbsp;Jing A. Zhang ,&nbsp;Jarrod Haar","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research agendas in science are fundamentally important to the generation of new knowledge and innovation. Yet, there remains a lack of scholarly attention and poor understanding on how science teams engage with research agendas in ways that influence their development. New insights are needed to better understand the factors that contribute to research agenda development and adaptation. In this paper, we draw on the framing perspective to explore how research agendas are framed in science teams over time. Research agendas can be understood as collective action frames within science teams that mobilize, guide, and coordinate the transformation of innovative but abstract science aspirations into something more concrete. Our research utilises a longitudinal case study analysis of two science teams over seven years (2016–2022). Our findings provide several new insights. First, we detail two ways in which research agendas are framed. Through centralised framing, research agendas are embodied and dictated by a visionary science team leader. In contrast, through decentralised framing, team leadership is weakly enacted and multiple team members discuss and deliberate the composition and direction of the research agenda. Second, we show centralised and decentralised approaches to framing enable and constrain the reframing and transformation of research agendas. Third, we demonstrate centralised and decentralised framing of research agendas are respectively stabilised by passive and active team learning environments across three areas: research agenda responsibility and accountability, nature of autonomy, and leadership development pathways. Finally, we theorise that, to enhance spillover, leaders who centralise framing of the research agenda need to balance between the benefits of reframing efficiency, and enabling greater team interaction and opportunities for S&amp;T human capital development. On the other hand, when framing of research agendas is decentralised, team leaders need to balance between the benefits of team collaboration and leader development, and path dependent decision making. These insights lead to propositions that offer implications for theory and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":"53 7","pages":"Article 105029"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000787/pdfft?md5=738454eaae0caafafd462a42f6889d6b&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324000787-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams\",\"authors\":\"Conor O'Kane ,&nbsp;Vincent Mangematin ,&nbsp;Jing A. Zhang ,&nbsp;Jarrod Haar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research agendas in science are fundamentally important to the generation of new knowledge and innovation. Yet, there remains a lack of scholarly attention and poor understanding on how science teams engage with research agendas in ways that influence their development. New insights are needed to better understand the factors that contribute to research agenda development and adaptation. In this paper, we draw on the framing perspective to explore how research agendas are framed in science teams over time. Research agendas can be understood as collective action frames within science teams that mobilize, guide, and coordinate the transformation of innovative but abstract science aspirations into something more concrete. Our research utilises a longitudinal case study analysis of two science teams over seven years (2016–2022). Our findings provide several new insights. First, we detail two ways in which research agendas are framed. Through centralised framing, research agendas are embodied and dictated by a visionary science team leader. In contrast, through decentralised framing, team leadership is weakly enacted and multiple team members discuss and deliberate the composition and direction of the research agenda. Second, we show centralised and decentralised approaches to framing enable and constrain the reframing and transformation of research agendas. Third, we demonstrate centralised and decentralised framing of research agendas are respectively stabilised by passive and active team learning environments across three areas: research agenda responsibility and accountability, nature of autonomy, and leadership development pathways. Finally, we theorise that, to enhance spillover, leaders who centralise framing of the research agenda need to balance between the benefits of reframing efficiency, and enabling greater team interaction and opportunities for S&amp;T human capital development. On the other hand, when framing of research agendas is decentralised, team leaders need to balance between the benefits of team collaboration and leader development, and path dependent decision making. These insights lead to propositions that offer implications for theory and practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Policy\",\"volume\":\"53 7\",\"pages\":\"Article 105029\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000787/pdfft?md5=738454eaae0caafafd462a42f6889d6b&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324000787-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000787\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000787","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学研究议程对于新知识的产生和创新至关重要。然而,对于科学团队如何以影响研究议程发展的方式参与研究议程,学术界仍然缺乏关注,理解也不透彻。我们需要新的见解,以更好地了解促进研究议程制定和调整的因素。在本文中,我们借鉴框架视角,探讨科学团队是如何随着时间的推移制定研究议程的。研究议程可以理解为科学团队中的集体行动框架,它动员、引导和协调将创新但抽象的科学愿望转化为更具体的东西。我们的研究利用纵向案例研究分析了两个科学团队七年(2016-2022 年)的情况。我们的研究结果提供了一些新的见解。首先,我们详细介绍了制定研究议程的两种方式。通过集中式框架,研究议程由富有远见的科学团队领导者体现和支配。与此相反,通过分散式框架,团队领导力被弱化,多个团队成员讨论并商议研究议程的构成和方向。其次,我们展示了集中式和分散式框架设计方法对研究议程的重构和转变的促进和制约作用。第三,我们证明,在研究议程的责任与问责、自治的性质和领导力发展途径这三个方面,被动和主动的团队学习环境分别稳定了研究议程的集中和分散制定。最后,我们从理论上认为,为了提高溢出效应,集中制定研究议程的领导者需要在重构效率、加强团队互动和提供 S&T 人力资本发展机会这三者之间取得平衡。另一方面,在分散制定研究议程时,团队领导者需要在团队合作和领导者发展的益处与路径依赖决策之间取得平衡。这些见解提出了对理论和实践具有启示意义的命题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams

Research agendas in science are fundamentally important to the generation of new knowledge and innovation. Yet, there remains a lack of scholarly attention and poor understanding on how science teams engage with research agendas in ways that influence their development. New insights are needed to better understand the factors that contribute to research agenda development and adaptation. In this paper, we draw on the framing perspective to explore how research agendas are framed in science teams over time. Research agendas can be understood as collective action frames within science teams that mobilize, guide, and coordinate the transformation of innovative but abstract science aspirations into something more concrete. Our research utilises a longitudinal case study analysis of two science teams over seven years (2016–2022). Our findings provide several new insights. First, we detail two ways in which research agendas are framed. Through centralised framing, research agendas are embodied and dictated by a visionary science team leader. In contrast, through decentralised framing, team leadership is weakly enacted and multiple team members discuss and deliberate the composition and direction of the research agenda. Second, we show centralised and decentralised approaches to framing enable and constrain the reframing and transformation of research agendas. Third, we demonstrate centralised and decentralised framing of research agendas are respectively stabilised by passive and active team learning environments across three areas: research agenda responsibility and accountability, nature of autonomy, and leadership development pathways. Finally, we theorise that, to enhance spillover, leaders who centralise framing of the research agenda need to balance between the benefits of reframing efficiency, and enabling greater team interaction and opportunities for S&T human capital development. On the other hand, when framing of research agendas is decentralised, team leaders need to balance between the benefits of team collaboration and leader development, and path dependent decision making. These insights lead to propositions that offer implications for theory and practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
期刊最新文献
“Meet me at the backdoor”: A multiple case study of academic entrepreneurs bypassing their technology transfer offices Governance of knowledge development in a public-private partnership: NASA's efforts to design the Space Shuttle Editorial Board Interfaces, social information processing, and diversity cascades: How board diversity influences invention output The Government Patent Register: A new resource for measuring U.S. government-funded patenting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1