IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v53y2024i7s0048733324000787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams

Author

Listed:
  • O'Kane, Conor
  • Mangematin, Vincent
  • Zhang, Jing A.
  • Haar, Jarrod

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • O'Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Zhang, Jing A. & Haar, Jarrod, 2024. "How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:7:s0048733324000787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105029?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. Daniel Tzabbar & Alex Vestal, 2015. "Bridging the Social Chasm in Geographically Distributed R&D Teams: The Moderating Effects of Relational Strength and Status Asymmetry on the Novelty of Team Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 811-829, June.
    2. Bojovic, Neva, 2022. "Strategic framing of enabling technologies: Insights from firms digitizing smell and taste," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    3. Fuglsang, Lars & Hansen, Anne Vorre, 2022. "Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Denise Falchetti & Gino Cattani & Simone Ferriani, 2022. "Start with “Why,” but only if you have to: The strategic framing of novel ideas across different audiences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 130-159, January.
    5. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    6. Hoppmann, Joern & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2020. "Why matter matters: How technology characteristics shape the strategic framing of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    7. Porac, Joseph F. & Wade, James B. & Fischer, Harald M. & Brown, Joyce & Kanfer, Alaina & Bowker, Geoffrey, 2004. "Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: a comparative case study of two scientific teams," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 661-678, May.
    8. James Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 93-110, February.
    9. Pansera, Mario & Owen, Richard, 2018. "Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 23-34.
    10. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    11. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    12. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly & Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects," Post-Print hal-00756228, HAL.
    13. J. Stuart Bunderson & Ray E. Reagans, 2011. "Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1182-1194, October.
    14. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    15. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
    16. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    17. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    18. Rebecca R. Kehoe & Daniel Tzabbar, 2015. "Lighting the way or stealing the shine? An examination of the duality in star scientists' effects on firm innovative performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 709-727, May.
    19. Antonino Vaccaro & Stefano Brusoni & Francisco M. Veloso, 2011. "Virtual Design, Problem Framing, and Innovation: An Empirical Study in the Automotive Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 99-122, January.
    20. Rajshree Agarwal & Martin Ganco & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, 2009. "Reputations for toughness in patent enforcement: implications for knowledge spillovers via inventor mobility," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(13), pages 1349-1374, December.
    21. Gerben S. Van der Vegt & Simon B. de Jong & J. Stuart Bunderson & Eric Molleman, 2010. "Power Asymmetry and Learning in Teams: The Moderating Role of Performance Feedback," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 347-361, April.
    22. Alfredo Yegros-Yegros & Ismael Rafols & Pablo D’Este, 2015. "Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    23. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    24. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    25. Kremena Slavova & Andrea Fosfuri & Julio O. De Castro, 2016. "Learning by Hiring: The Effects of Scientists’ Inbound Mobility on Research Performance in Academia," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 72-89, February.
    26. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 81-93, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Matteo Prato & Fabrizio Ferraro, 2018. "Starstruck: How Hiring High-Status Employees Affects Incumbents’ Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 755-774, October.
    2. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    3. O'Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Zhang, Jing A. & Cunningham, James A., 2020. "How university-based principal investigators shape a hybrid role identity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    4. Marzena Podgórska, 2022. "Challenges and Perspectives in Innovative Projects Focused on Sustainable Industry 4.0—A Case Study on Polish Project Teams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    5. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    8. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Nishant, Rohit & Van De Vrande, Vareska & Hang, Chang Chieh, 2022. "Technology transfer from public research institutes to SMEs: A configurational approach to studying reverse knowledge flow benefits," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    9. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Indira Yarullina, 2024. "Outcomes of science-industry collaboration: factors and interdependencies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 542-580, April.
    10. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    11. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    12. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    13. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    14. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    15. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Daire Hooper & Daniel Nepelski & Vincent Van Roy, 2020. "The Role of Project Coordinators in European Commission Framework Programme Projects. Results of the Innovation Radar PC Survey in FP R&I Projects," JRC Research Reports JRC120015, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Wang, Jian, 2016. "Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 68-80.
    17. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    18. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    19. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    20. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.

    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:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:7:s0048733324000787. 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/locate/respol .

    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.