IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v38y2020i5p684-697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Following unique logics despite institutional complexity: An inductive study of academic inventors and institutional logics

Author

Listed:
  • Brantnell, Anders
  • Baraldi, Enrico

Abstract

This paper examines how institutional complexity, due to the availability of multiple logics, influences the behavior of academic inventors during an innovation process. Based on four case studies of medical technology innovations, this paper identifies three logics influencing academic inventors’ behavior: academic, market, and care logics. We identify several patterns that characterize the practices of academic inventors in a context with multiple institutional logics. Despite the availability of multiple logics, we observe a strong pattern of academic inventors predominantly following the market or the care logic. As for the influence of multiple logics, we find very limited interaction between logics (i.e., reinforcing, complementary and conflicting interaction), with the prevalent pattern being “no interaction” between institutional logics. Thus, instead of following several logics, academic inventors’ specific practices are mostly guided by a “unique” logic. This influence of logics leads to a clear pattern of “dominant” influence on behavior, reflected in individual strategies of “entrenching,” that is, a strategy based on building one’s behavior on a “unique” logic. However, the same available logics can also generate "aligned" influence, entailing behavior guided by several logics. But this occurs only if the academic inventor faces uncertainty regarding the exploitation of the intellectual property. With these findings, we add to the ongoing discussion concerning institutional complexity and individual behavior by elucidating in detail how institutional complexity can entail behavior guided by “unique” logics.

Suggested Citation

  • Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2020. "Following unique logics despite institutional complexity: An inductive study of academic inventors and institutional logics," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 684-697.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:38:y:2020:i:5:p:684-697
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237320300268
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.005?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
    ---><---

    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. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Candace Jones & Massimo Maoret & Felipe G. Massa & Silviya Svejenova, 2012. "Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture,” 1870–1975," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1523-1545, December.
    3. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    4. Rodolphe Durand & Hayagreeva Rao & Philippe Monin, 2003. "Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy," Post-Print hal-00480858, HAL.
    5. Miller, Fiona Alice & Sanders, Carrie B. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2009. "Imagining value, imagining users: Academic technology transfer for health innovation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1481-1488, April.
    6. Jensen, Richard A. & Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2003. "Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with'," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1271-1300, November.
    7. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    8. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    9. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    10. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    11. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Marilynn B. Brewer, 1994. "Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," NBER Working Papers 4653, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    13. Richard A. Jensen & Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2003. "The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions," NBER Working Papers 9734, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    15. Campbell, Eric G. & Weissman, Joel S. & Causino, Nancyanne & Blumenthal, David, 2000. "Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 303-312, February.
    16. Hayagreeva Rao & Philippe Monin & Rodolphe Durand, 2003. "Institutional change in toque ville : Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy," Post-Print hal-02311672, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. Paul Tracey & Nelson Phillips & Owen Jarvis, 2011. "Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 60-80, 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. Poulis, Konstantinos, 2021. "Complexity as an empirical tendency: Promoting non-measurement as a means to enhanced understanding," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 487-496.

    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. Baldini, Nicola, 2009. "Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1217-1224, October.
    2. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    3. 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.
    4. Andrew J. Nelson, 2016. "How to Share “A Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions Around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, April.
    5. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    6. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    7. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    8. Stefano Bianchini & Francesco Lissoni & Michele Pezzoni & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2016. "The economics of research, consulting, and teaching quality: theory and evidence from a technical university," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 668-691, October.
    9. Richard A. Jensen & Marie C. Thursby, 2004. "Patent Licensing and the Research University," NBER Working Papers 10758, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Christoph Kober, 2010. "Enhancing Knowledge-Based Regional Economic Development: Potentials and Barriers for Technology Transfer Offices," NEURUS papers neurusp139, NEURUS - Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies.
    11. Frédéric C. Godart & Charles Galunic, 2019. "Explaining the Popularity of Cultural Elements: Networks, Culture, and the Structural Embeddedness of High Fashion Trends," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 151-168, February.
    12. Junghee Han & Almas Heshmati, 2016. "Determinants Of Financial Rewards From Industry–University Collaboration In South Korea," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-26, October.
    13. Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2010. "University Licensing: Harnessing or Tarnishing Faculty Research?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 159-189, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin & Will Geoghegan & Ciara Fitzgerald, 2015. "University Technology Transfer offices : the search for identity to build legimacy," Post-Print hal-01072998, HAL.
    15. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2016. "Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 533-545.
    16. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    17. Olivier Cristofini, 2021. "Toward a Discursive Approach to the Hybridization of Practice: Insights from the Case of Servitization in France," Post-Print hal-03886255, HAL.
    18. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    19. Manlio Del Giudice & Melita Nicotra & Marco Romano & Carmela Elita Schillaci, 2017. "Entrepreneurial performance of principal investigators and country culture: relations and influences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 320-337, April.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:eurman:v:38:y:2020:i:5:p:684-697. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    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.