Determinants of Knowledge and Technology Transfer Activities Between Firms and Science Institutions in Switzerland: An Analysis Based on Firm Data

This study explores the factors determining the propensity of Swiss firms to interact with public science institutions in Switzerland (universities and other research institution), i.e. to get involved in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities in order to gain new tacit and/or codified scientific knowledge in research fields which are relevant for their own innovation activities. We are especially interested in the different forms of this interaction, not only through joint research projects but also through training, recruitment of qualified R&D personnel, jointly supervised master theses and PhDs, consulting and so on. The data used in this study were collected in the course of a survey among Swiss enterprises. The new elements that this paper adds to empirical literature are, first, the analysis of a wide spectrum of KTT activities covering not only research co-operation agreements between firms and science institutions but also general informational and educational activities (transfer of tacit knowledge), joint use of technical infrastructure and consulting. Although such additional activities seem to be an important part of KTT activities, they have been neglected in most studies. Second, a further important element is the explicit consideration of a series of relevant motives and obstacles as determinants of KTT which contribute significantly to the econometric explanation of firms' propensity to overall KTT activities as well as to several forms of KTT activities. Third, some insights are gained with respect to the differences between manufacturing and service firms in transacting with science institutions. This is the first Swiss firm-level study on this matter

Lectures in Honor of the Alexander Campbell Bicentennial

In 1984, the Disciples of Christ Historical Society set forth a program to celebrate the 200th birthday of Alexander Campbell. This book launched a renewed interest in Stone-Campbell history and inspired research that shaped numerous historical projects. Contributors include T. Dwight Bozeman, Robert O. Fife, Richard L. Harrison, Samuel S. Hill, Thomas Olbricht, William J. Richardson, D. Newell Williams, Eva Jean Wrather, and Barbara Brown Zickmund.https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/acu_library_books/1018/thumbnail.jp

Ideologies implicated in IT innovation in government: a critical discourse analysis of Mexico’s international trade administration

We develop a perspective of IT innovation in the public sector as a process that involves three complementary areas of ideology and concomitant dispute: first, the widespread view of e-government as a transformative force that leads to major improvements of public sector functions for the benefit of society at large; second, ideologies concerning the substantive policies enacted by public sector organizations; and third, ideology regarding public sector modernization. Our research examines how the objectives of IT projects and their actual effects in government are influenced by such ideologies and contestations that surround them. We develop our theoretical contribution with a critical discourse analysis that traces the ideological underpinnings of two consecutive IT projects for the administration of international trade in Mexico. This analysis associates the objectives of the IT projects with the emergence and ensuing contestation in Mexican politics of two ideologies: the first ideology concerns free international trade as imperative for economic development; the second ideology concerns public sector modernization that sought to overcome historically formed dysfunctionalities of public administration bureaucracies by adopting management practices from the private sector. The analysis then identifies the effects of the ideologically shaped IT projects on two key values of public administration: efficiency and legality. The insights of this research on the role of ideology in IT innovation complement organizational perspectives of e-government; socio-cognitive perspectives that focus on ideas and meaning, such as technology frames and organizing visions; and perspectives that focus on politics in IT innovation

Political Contestability and Public Contracting

Do public agents undertake socially inefficient activities to protect themselves? In politically contestable markets, part of the lack of flexibility in the design and implementation of the public procurement process reflects public agents' risk adaptations to limit the political hazards from opportunistic third parties---political opponents, competitors, and interest groups. Reduced flexibility limits the likelihood of opportunistic challenges, while externalizing the associated adaptation costs to the public at large. We study this matter and provide a comprehensive theoretical framework with empirically testable predictions

Competing values in public management

The main objective of the article is to review relevant literature on (competing) public values in public management and to present a number of perspectives on how to deal with value conflicts in different administrative settings and contexts. We start this symposium with the assumption that value conflicts are prevalent, the public context can be characterized by value pluralism, and instrumental rationality does not seem to be the most useful to understand or improve value conflicts in public governance. This begs the question: what is the best way to study and manage value conflicts? The contributions to this symposium issue approach value conflicts in public governance from different perspectives, within different countries and different administrative and management systems, hoping to contribute to the debate on how to deal with important yet conflicting public values in public management, without pretending to offer a conclusive strategy or approach. This introductory article also presents and reviews the contributions to this symposium issue. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

An Integrated Framework for Intersectorality: Nonprofitness and Its Influence on Society and Public Administration Programs

Cross-sector interactions have long occurred in the public delivery of goods, services, and interests. While scholars have often addressed cross-sector interactions using the dimensions of publicness (state) and privateness (market), an intersectoral framework necessitates the understanding and incorporation of nonprofitness to account for the dimensions of nonprofits along the public-private continuum. This article proposes a framework for identifying the dimensions of nonprofits in an intersectoral world and draws on relevant examples to illustrate the presence and influence of nonprofitness. The article then focuses on the future of education in the field of public administration and, in light of the proposed framework, makes and considers recommendations to help educational programs better equip students to appreciate work across sectors

Evaluation Research and Institutional Pressures: Challenges in Public-Nonprofit Contracting

This article examines the connection between program evaluation research and decision-making by public managers. Drawing on neo-institutional theory, a framework is presented for diagnosing the pressures and conditions that lead alternatively toward or away the rational use of evaluation research. Three cases of public-nonprofit contracting for the delivery of major programs are presented to clarify the way coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures interfere with a sound connection being made between research and implementation. The article concludes by considering how public managers can respond to the isomorphic pressures in their environment that make it hard to act on data relating to program performance.This publication is Hauser Center Working Paper No. 23. The Hauser Center Working Paper Series was launched during the summer of 2000. The Series enables the Hauser Center to share with a broad audience important works-in-progress written by Hauser Center scholars and researchers

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value

[EN] Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and math- ematics research and arts and humanities research s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, which funded the PhD research fellowship of Julia Olmos Peñuela through the F.P.U program [AP2007- 01850]. The research fellowship took place in the framework of the HERAVALUE project, Measuring the public value of arts and humanities research, financially supported by the HERA Joint Research Programme, cofunded by AHRC, AKA, DASTI, ETF, FNR, FWF, HAZU, IRCHSS, MHEST, NWO, RANNIS, RCN, VR and The European Community FP7 2007-2013, under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme. The authors would like to thank the editors and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments. Any errors or omissions remain the authors’ responsibilitieOlmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 14(1):61-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214534081S617814