Governance mode choice in collaborative Ph.D. projects

Joint Ph.D. projects are a prominent form of research collaboration, connecting universities to firms and public research organizations. When entering into such collaborations, partners need to make choices regarding a project’s governance. This paper investigates how a university and its partners govern such projects, including decision-making, daily management and disclosure policies. Earlier studies show that shared governance modes have had a higher success rate than centralized governance modes. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of the 191 joint Ph.D. projects we investigated opted for centralized rather than shared governance. Our findings show that: (1) geographical and/or cognitive distance render the adoption of a shared governance mode less likely; (2) the partner controlling critical resources tends to centralize governance, and (3) partnering firms are more likely to put restrictions on publication output than public research organizations. We therefore recommend that universities and their partners take these aspects into account when selecting such projects.

[1]  André Torre,et al.  Proximity and Localization , 2005 .

[2]  Pierre-Alexandre Balland,et al.  Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry , 2012 .

[3]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[4]  Tiago Moreira,et al.  Structures of Scientific Collaboration , 2009 .

[5]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology , 1987 .

[6]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[7]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[8]  A. Gillison,et al.  Research Partnerships , 2007 .

[9]  M. Hitt,et al.  Direct and Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based Perspective , 2001 .

[10]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[11]  O. Williamson.  Markets and Hierarchies , 1975 .

[12]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  PhD job market: professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD , 2000 .

[13]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity , 2005 .

[14]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[15]  W. Powell,et al.  Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  A. Torre,et al.  Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? , 1999 .

[17]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[18]  N. Rosenberg.  Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) , 1990 .

[19]  Taran Thune,et al.  Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: a review of the literature , 2009 .

[20]  Marie Ferru,et al.  Exploring spatial features of science-industry partnerships: A study on French data , 2011 .

[21]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Governance and success of university-industry collaborations on the basis of Ph.D. projects: an explorative study , 2013 .

[22]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography # 11 . 06 Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations : what type of proximity does really matter ? , 2011 .

[23]  C. Autant‐Bernard,et al.  Social distance versus spatial distance in R & D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[24]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[25]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[26]  Alessandro Nuvolari,et al.  Collective invention during the British , 2004 .

[27]  P. Desrochers,et al.  Geographical Proximity and the Transmission of Tacit Knowledge , 2001 .

[28]  O. Granstrand,et al.  Multi-Technology Corporations: Why They Have “Distributed” Rather Than “Distinctive Core” Competencies , 1997 .

[29]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[30]  L. Vaccarezza.  The new production of knowledge. The dinamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Hega Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott y Martin Trow, Londres, SAGE Publications, 1994, 179 páginas. , 1995 .

[31]  Terry S. Overton,et al.  Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys , 1977 .

[32]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[33]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms , 1994 .

[34]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .