Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motivation Behind Researchers’ Participation in Formal Networking Research Projects Funded by the European Union

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using the case of European Union Cooperation in Science and Technology Actions, this paper investigates why despite the small scale of funding provided and substantial scientific and management workload, researchers are increasingly interested in formal networking research funded by the European Union. This paper empirically examines this motivation while controlling for researcher scientific domain, country of work and previous experience of such funding. We find that most researchers are primarily driven by a need to meet peers and that over time researchers view such funding scheme significantly less as additional funding and more as a venue for meeting peers and for disseminating research results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Composition of macro-geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions and selected economic and other groupings suggested by the UN Statistics Division: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abu-Zidan, F. M., & Rizk, D. E. E. (2005). Research in developing countries: problems and solutions. International Urogynecology Journal, 16(3), 174–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. P. (1974). The structure of interorganizational elite co-optation: interlocking corporate directorates. American Sociological Review, 34, 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: a comparison between Europe and the USA. Technovation, 24(7), 517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalisation of technology and its implications for developing countries: windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 861–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of Management Review, 9, 526–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aversi, R., Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., Meacci, M., & Olivetti, C. (1999). Demand dynamics with socially evolving preferences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(2), 353–408. doi:10.1093/icc/8.2.353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bougrain, F., & Haudeville, B. (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393–1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breimer, D. D. (1996). University–industry collaboration in the pharmaceutical sciences. Drug Discovery Today, 1(10), 403–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Middleton Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2002). University–industry research collaborations in the UK. Report on phase 1 of a project funded by EPSRC/ESRC contract no. P015615. Brighton: SPRU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology (94:Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure), 94, S95–S120.

  • Cook, K. S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of inter-organizational relations. The Sociological Quarterly, 18, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COST (2013). About COST, 2013–2014. Brussels: COST.

  • EU Council (2009). Conclusions of the Council on the definition of a ‘2020 vision for the European research area’. Notices from European Union Institutions and Bodies (Council): Official Journal of the European Union.

  • Creech, H., & Willard, T. (2001). Strategic intentions: managing knowledge networks for sustainable development. Winnipeg: IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development).

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devetag, M. G. (1999). From utilities to mental models: a critical survey on decision rules and cognition in consumer choice. Ind Corp Change, 8(2), 289–351. doi:10.1093/icc/8.2.289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Ballinger.

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, P. G. H. (1993). Daring to share: networking among non-government organisations. In C. Alders, B. Haverkort, & L. Van Veldhuizen (Eds.), Linking with farmers, networking for low-external-input and sustainable agriculture (ILEIA Readings in Sustainable Agriculture). London: Intermediate Technology.

  • European Commission (2012). Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: a strategic approach. Brussels: European Commission.

  • EuroStat (2007). Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/!PORTAL.wwpob_page.show?_docname=36126.PNG. Accessed 27 June 2009.

  • Fowler, S. W., Lawrence, T. B., & Morse, E. A. (2004). Virtually embedded ties. Journal of Management, 30(5), 647–666. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.02.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Hölzl, W., & Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1–2), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, L. (2013). Evaluation culture creeping across Europe but assessors are struggling to make an impact on policy. Research Europe.

  • Gupta, A. K., & Lad, L. J. (1983). Industry self-regulation: an economic, organizational, and political analysis. Academy of Management Review, 8, 416–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Monitor Programme., & Commission of the European Communities. (1991). The economic effects of strategic partnerships and technology cooperation. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General Telecommunications Information Industries and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvat, M., Acheson, H., Demonte, V., Edler, J., Mustonen, R., & Vas, I. (2010). FP7 Mid-Term Evaluation of COST. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

  • Katz, J., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, T., Gogel, R., & Sonquist, J. (1979). Models of the significance of interlocking corporate directorates. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 38, 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., & Nabil, A. (1998). The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy, 27(9), 901–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education, 32(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2005). Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance? Research Evaluation, 14, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Morse, E. A., & Fowler, S. W. (2005). Managing your portfolio of connections. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, S., & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: a social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1985). The effects of the mentor on the academic career. Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2013). Does government funding complement or substitute private research funding to universities? Research Policy, 42(1), 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: an application to competing predictions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polster, C. (2007). The nature and implications of the growing importance of research grants to Canadian universities and academics. Higher Education, 53(5), 599–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, S. U. (1997). Global cooperation in science, engineering, and medicine: an overview of the issues. Technology in Society, 19(1), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Bazerman, M. H., & Atkin, R. S. (1981). Interlocking directorates: a strategy for reducing environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 6, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1985). Corporations, classes and capitalism (2nd, completely rev. ed.). London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnikoff, E. B. (2001). The political role of scientific cooperation. Technology in Society, 23(3), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37(8), 1255–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, A., & Engel, P. (2004). Networking for learning: what can participants do? Zeist: Interchurch Organisation for Development Cooperation. (ICCO); Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. M. (1979). The capitalist world-economy: essays by Immanuel Wallerstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R. L., Rose, S. M., & Bergunder, A. F. (1974). The structure of urban reform. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiewel, W., & Hunter, A. (1985). The interorganizational network as a resource: a comparative case study on organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 482–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ynalvez, M. A., & Shrum, W. M. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40(2), 204–216. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(72–88).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), IPTS, Seville, Spain

    Ruslan Rakhmatullin

  2. School of Business, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Louis Brennan

Authors
  1. Ruslan Rakhmatullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louis Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruslan Rakhmatullin.

Additional information

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire (potential participants—Open Call applicants)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rakhmatullin, R., Brennan, L. Motivation Behind Researchers’ Participation in Formal Networking Research Projects Funded by the European Union. J Knowl Econ 5, 305–329 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0181-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0181-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation