Protecting Scientists from Gordon Gekko: How Organizations Use Hybrid Spaces to Engage with Multiple Institutional Logics

References

• Aghion P, Dewatripont M, Stein JC (2008) Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND J. Econom. 39(3):617–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alford R, Friedland R (1985) Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almandoz J (2012) Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1381–1406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 35(4):427–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Dorado S (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1419–1440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Lee M (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Acad. Management Annals 8(1):397–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Sengul M, Pache A-C, Model J (2014) Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Acad. Management J. 58(6):1658–1685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML (2014) The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1485–1512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Smith WK (2014) Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Acad. Management Rev. 39(3):364–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boardman C, Bozeman B (2007) Role strain in university research centers. J. Higher Ed. 78(4):430–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boxenbaum E, Jonsson S (2008) Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R, eds. Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, Los Angeles), 78–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, Henderson RM (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2):157–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• D’Aunno T, Sutton RI, Price RH (1991) Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Acad. Management J. 34(3):636–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Este P, Perkmann M (2011) Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Tech. Transfer 36(3):316–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23(5):487–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 63–82.Google Scholar
• Durand R, Jourdan J (2012) Jules or Jim: Alternative conformity to minority logics. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1295–1315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fini R, Jourdan J, Perkmann M (2017) Social valuation across multiple audiences: the interplay between ability and identity judgments. Acad. Management J., ePub ahead of print December 7, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0661.Google Scholar
• Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16(1):15–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glynn MA (2008) Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, Los Angeles), 413–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glynn MA, Lounsbury M (2005) From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. J Management Stud. 42(5):1031–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Kodeih F, Micelotta E, Raynard M, Lounsbury M (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Ann. Acad. Management 5(1):317–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heimer CA (1999) Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal care. Law Society Rev. 33(1):17–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heinze K, Weber K (2016) Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in integrative medicine. Organ. Sci. 27(1):157–172.Link, Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville J, Golden-Biddle K, Irwin J, Mao J (2011) Liminality as cultural process for cultural change. Organ. Sci. 22(2):522–539.Link, Google Scholar
• Jain S, George G (2007) Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: The case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Indust. Corp. Change 16(4):535–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jancsary D, Meyer RE, Höllerer MA, Barberio V (2017) Toward a structural model of organizational level institutional pluralism and logic interconnectedness. Organ. Sci. 28(6):1150–1167.Link, Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski P, Lê JK, Van de Ven A (2013a) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organ. 11(2):245–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski P, Smets M, Bednarek R, Burke G, Spee P (2013b) Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. Lounsbury M, Boxenbaum E, eds. Institutional Logics in Action, Part B. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 39 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 37–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jay J (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad. Management J. 56(1):137–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC (2009) Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(3):657–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kodeih F, Greenwood R (2014) Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organ. Stud. 35(1):7–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS, Block ES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R, eds. Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, Los Angeles), 243–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N (2009) Different missions and commitment power in R&D Organizations: Theory and evidence on industry-university alliances. Organ. Sci. 20(3):565–582.Link, Google Scholar
• Lach S, Schankerman M (2008) Incentives and invention in universities. RAND J. Econom. 39(2):403–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee M-DP, Lounsbury M (2015) Filtering institutional logics: Community logic variation and differential responses to the institutional complexity of toxic waste. Organ. Sci. 26(3):847–866.Link, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago University Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Mohr LB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco)Google Scholar
• Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res. Policy 30(1):99–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray, F (2002) Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy 31(8,9):1389–1403.Google Scholar
• Murray F, O’Mahony S (2007) Reconceptualizing the institutional foundations of cumulative innovation. Organ. Sci. 18(6):1006–1021.Link, Google Scholar
• Nature (2001) Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature 409(6817):119.Google Scholar
• Nelson AJ (2005) Cacophony or harmony? Multivocal logics and technology licensing by the Stanford University Department of Music. Indust. Corp. Change 14(1):93–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR (1959) The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Political Econom. 67(3):297–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Mahony S, Bechky BA (2008) Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3):422–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W, Radoynovska, N (2016) Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organ. 14(4):287–309.Google Scholar
• OECD (2016) Main science and technology indicators. Accessed July 27, 2018, http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm.Google Scholar
• Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad. Management Rev. 16(1):145–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen-Smith J (2003) From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Res. Policy 32(6):1081–1104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache A-C, Santos FM (2010) When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional logics. Acad. Management Rev. 35(3):455–476.Google Scholar
• Pache A-C, Santos FM (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 56(4):972–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pain E (2008) Science careers. Playing well with industry. Science 319(5869):1548–1551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perkmann M, Schildt H (2015) Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Res. Policy 44(5):1133–1143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Polanyi M (2000) The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 38(1):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, Sandholtz KW (2012) Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 6(2):94–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raaijmakers A, Vermeulen P, Meeus M, Zietsma C (2015) I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Acad. Management J. 58(1):85–110.Google Scholar
• Ramus T, Vaccaro A, Brusoni S (2017) Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Acad. Management J. 60(4):1253–1284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reay T, Hinings CR (2005) The recomposition of an organizational field: Healthcare in Alberta. Organ. Stud. 26(3):351–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reay T, Hinings CR (2009) Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organ. Stud. 30(6):629–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos FM, Pache AC, Birkholz C (2015) Making hybrids work. Calif. Management Rev. 57(3):36–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauermann H, Stephan P (2013) Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organ. Sci. 24(3):889–909.Link, Google Scholar
• Schildt H, Perkmann M (2017) Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity. J. Management Inquiry 26(2):139–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shymko Y, Roulet T (2017) When does Medici hurt DaVinci? Mitigating the signaling effect of extraneous stakeholder relationships in the field of cultural production. Acad. Management J. 60(4):1307–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN (2003) Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. J. High Tech. Management Res. 14(1):111–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smets M, Jarzabkowski P, Burke G, Spee P (2015) Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Acad. Management J. 58(3):932–970.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stern S (2004) Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Sci. 50(6):835–853.Link, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH (2002) The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 45(1):81–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W (2008) Institutional logics. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, Los Angeles), 99–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tracey P, Phillips N, Jarvis O (2011) Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organ. Sci. 22(1):60–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Washburn J (2000) The kept university. The Atlantic 285(3):44–52.Google Scholar
• York J, Hargrave T, Pacheco D (2016) Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Acad. Management J. 59(2):579–610.Crossref, Google Scholar