Experimenting with Open Innovation in Science (OIS) practices: a novel approach to co-developing research proposals

https://e-publishing.cern.ch/index.php/CIJ/article/view/1328Published versio

PROSECON Funder Study

This study investigates how research funders seek to shape the research that they fund

Four archetypes of Open Science Partnerships Connecting aims and means in open research collaborations

Open Science Partnerships (OSPs) are gaining attention as an alternative or supplement to university-industry collaborations with more restrictive policies on IPR and knowledge sharing. OSPs are however not a homogenous phenomenon; they differ in important respects that influence what they can be used for, and the impact they can create. This exploratory study draws on a qualitative case study of five biomedical OSPs and engagement with OSP practitioners to identify key elements in the design of OSPs. We argue that understanding the purpose of an OSP is crucial to understand how OSPs differ. We distinguish between two key components of this purpose. The first refers to the predominant purpose of the OSP, as indicated by the relative weight placed on the advancement of the progress of science vs. the advancement of the use of science, notably in the private sector. The second refers to the nature of the research aims pursued by an OSP, focusing on whether they are directed or open-ended. Based on these two components, we propose four ideal types of OSPs that highlight the varied forms that such partnerships can take. These archetypes are intended to provide a starting point for researchers interested in better understanding of the nature and scope of OSPs, and for practitioners wishing to ensure that means applied match the desired ends when designing OSPs

Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships:connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations

Open Science Partnerships (OSPs) are gaining attention as alternatives to university–industry collaborations with restrictive IPR and knowledge sharing policies. OSPs have different expected outcomes and deploy varying means to reach them. Appreciating these differences is crucial to understanding their scientific and socio-economic impact, and yet these differences have never been systematically investigated. This exploratory study draws on qualitative case studies of five biomedical OSPs involving academic partners and pharmaceutical companies. It identifies key elements—purpose, activities and structure—that can be used to describe how OSPs are designed. We identify two key aspects of purpose—predominant intent and research aims—which we argue affect the activities and structure of an OSP. Based on these two aspects, we propose four ideal types of OSPs that are designed to provide a starting point for researchers who explore the nature and impact of OSPs and for practitioners who are developing OSPs and wish to ensure that they deploy appropriate means to meet the intended outcomes of their partnership.</p

Examining Open Innovation in Science (OIS): what Open Innovation can and cannot offer the science of science

Scholars across disciplines increasingly hear calls for more open and collaborative approaches to scientific research. The concept of Open Innovation in Science (OIS) provides a framework that integrates dispersed research efforts aiming to understand the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of applying open and collaborative research practices. While the OIS framework has already been taken up by science of science scholars, its conceptual underpinnings require further specification. In this essay, we critically examine the OIS concept and bring to light two key aspects: 1) how OIS builds upon Open Innovation (OI) research by adopting its attention to boundary-crossing knowledge flows and by adapting other concepts developed and researched in OI to the science context, as exemplified by two OIS cases in the area of research funding; 2) how OIS conceptualises knowledge flows across boundaries. While OI typically focuses on well-defined organisational boundaries, we argue that blurry and even invisible boundaries between communities of practice may more strongly constrain flows of knowledge related to openness and collaboration in science. Given the uptake of this concept, this essay brings needed clarity to the meaning of OIS, which has no particular normative orientation towards a close coupling between science and industry. We end by outlining the essay's contributions to OI and the science of science, as well as to science practitioners.ENT