Understanding Open Versus Proprietary Research and Innovation: A Case Study of Canada's Pharmaceutical Sector

With decreasing public funding for scientific research and innovation (R&I) in Canada, the onus has fallen on public research institutions strategically partner with industry to ensure that research generates innovative socio-economic gains. As a result, R&D has become more prescribed and more restricted, as private contracts and other proprietary intellectual property (IP) mechanisms regulate and often limit avenues of inquiry. This push towards commercialization has extended upstream into the process of research itself, and is not limited solely to product development (Mirowski and Van Horn, 2005). In response to the restraints on R&I imposed by commercialization and proprietary IP measures, concepts of open science and innovation have become increasingly prominent, particularly in discussions of pharmaceutical development. The push towards openness in R&I has offered a potential solution to navigating through complex networks of proprietary IP licenses and patents, primarily by releasing project data into the public domain and ensuring broad user access, expanding participation in R&I, and reducing commercial barriers (Gitter, 2013; Feldman & Nelson, 2008). While open science initiatives offer low entry costs and increased methodological transparency, there is significant debate within the STS and innovation studies literature regarding the role of open and proprietary IP in R&I. While some, such as Lezuan and Montgomery (2015), argue proprietary mechanisms are necessary for collaboration and provide incentives for investing in research, others, such as Mirowski (2011), highlight the aforementioned roadblocks to innovation and collaboration brought about proprietary IP. In both cases, open and proprietary mechanisms are often presented as dichotomous and incompatible. This dissertation builds on the argument that, contrary to this dichotomy presented in current STS scholarship, these open and proprietary mechanisms may be complimentary at particular stages of R&I. I extend my focus to intermediary organizations established to facilitate the translation of basic research into marketable pharmaceutical products, in addition to public research institutes, small- to medium-sized private pharmaceutical firms, and incubator labs in Toronto. In doing so, this research aims to unpack how these mechanisms operate in the R&I process, as well as their role in facilitating or hindering collaboration and pharmaceutical R&I more broadly

Smartphone chronic gaming consumption and positive coping practice

Purpose: Chronic consumption practice has been greatly accelerated by mobile, interactive and smartphone gaming technology devices. This study explores how chronic consumption of smartphone gaming produces positive coping practice. Design/methodology/approach: Underpinned by cognitive framing theory, empirical insights from eleven focus groups (n=62) reveal how smartphone gaming enhances positive coping amongst gamers and non-gamers. Findings: The findings reveal how the chronic consumption of games allows technology to act with privileged agency that resolves tensions between individuals and collectives. Consumption narratives of smartphone games, even when play is limited, lead to the identification of three cognitive frames through which positive coping processes operate: (a) the market generated frame, (b) the social being frame, and (c) the citizen frame. Research limitations/implications: This paper adds to previous research by providing an understanding of positive coping practice in the smartphone chronic gaming consumption. Originality/value: In smartphone chronic gaming consumption, cognitive frames enable positive coping by fostering appraisal capacities in which individuals confront, hegemony, culture and alterity-morality concerns

What Makes an Economy Productive and Progressive? What Are the Needed Institutions?

Institutions again have become the focus of the theorizing and empirical work of economists concerned with the determinants of economic growth, and of cross country differences in income levels. One central argument of this paper is that institutions and institutional change need to be understood as tightly intertwined with the technologies used in an economy, and with technological change. A second argument is that, in general, societies have very limited ability to design institutions that are effective, and that the processes of institutional reform work erratically.

What Makes an Economy Productive and Progressive? What Are the Needed Institutions?

Institutions again have become the focus of the theorizing and empirical work of economists concerned with the determinants of economic growth, and of cross country differences in income levels. One central argument of this paper is that institutions and institutional change need to be understood as tightly intertwined with the technologies used in an economy, and with technological change. A second argument is that, in general, societies have very limited ability to design institutions that are effective, and that the processes of institutional reform work erratically.Institutional and Behavioral Economics,

Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory

Organizational theorists have long acknowledged the importance of the formal and informal incentives facing a firm%u2019s employees, stressing that the political economy of a firm plays a major role in shaping organizational life and firm behavior. Yet the detailed study of incentive systems has traditionally been left in the hands of (organizational) economists, with most organizational theorists focusing their attention on critical problems in culture, network structure, framing and so on -- in essence, the social context in which economics and incentive systems are embedded. We argue that this separation of domains is problematic. The economics literature, for example, is unable to explain why organizations should find it difficult to change incentive structures in the face of environmental change, while the organizational literature focuses heavily on the role of inertia as sources of organizational rigidity. Drawing on recent research on incentives in organizational economics and on cognition in organizational theory, we build a framework for the analysis of incentives that highlights the ways in which incentives and cognition -- while being analytically distinct concepts -- are phenomenologically deeply intertwined. We suggest that incentives and cognition coevolve so that organizational competencies or routines are as much about building knowledge of %u201Cwhat should be rewarded%u201D as they are about %u201Cwhat should be done.%u201D

Making sense of visual management through affordance theory

Visual management is much used within operations management practice, particularly in association with process improvement initiatives in diverse areas such as production and healthcare. The practitioner literature abounds with suggested best practice. However, there is little attempt to theorise about why the design and use of ‘visual’ devices for such process improvement works in practice. Within this paper we describe a novel theory of operation which highlights the role that material and visual artefacts proposed by visual management practitioners play within particular ways of organising work. We develop an innovative way of employing the theory of affordances to explain how first and second order affordances, situated around the visual devices at the heart of visual management, connect three domains of action, which we refer to as articulation, communication and coordination. Our analysis of three cases from healthcare, clothing manufacturing and software production help ground the theorisation discussed

Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation

Although digital transformation offers a number of opportunities for today’s organizations, information systems scholars and practitioners struggle to grasp what digital transformation really is, particularly in terms of how it differs from the well-established concept of information technology (IT)-enabled organizational transformation. By integrating literature from organization science and information systems research with two longitudinal case studies—one on digital transformation, the other on IT-enabled organizational transformation—we develop an empirically grounded conceptualization that sets these two phenomena apart. We find that there are two distinctive differences: (1) digital transformation activities leverage digital technology in (re)defining an organization’s value proposition, while IT-enabled organizational transformation activities leverage digital technology in supporting the value proposition, and (2) digital transformation involves the emergence of a new organizational identity, whereas IT-enabled organizational transformation involves the enhancement of an existing organizational identity. We synthesize these arguments in a process model to distinguish the different types of transformations and propose directions for future research

Unpacking the Difference Between Digital Transformation and IT-Enabled Organizational Transformation

Although digital transformation offers a number of opportunities for today’s organizations, information systems scholars and practitioners struggle to grasp what digital transformation really is, particularly in terms of how it differs from the well-established concept of information technology (IT)-enabled organizational transformation. By integrating literature from organization science and information systems research with two longitudinal case studies—one on digital transformation, the other on IT-enabled organizational transformation—we develop an empirically grounded conceptualization that sets these two phenomena apart. We find that there are two distinctive differences: (1) digital transformation activities leverage digital technology in (re)defining an organization’s value proposition, while IT-enabled organizational transformation activities leverage digital technology in supporting the value proposition, and (2) digital transformation involves the emergence of a new organizational identity, whereas IT-enabled organizational transformation involves the enhancement of an existing organizational identity. We synthesize these arguments in a process model to distinguish the different types of transformations and propose directions for future research