The Experts below are selected from a list of 12417 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
James A. Cunningham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how university based Principal Investigators shape a hybrid role identity
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020Co-Authors: Conor Okane, Vincent Mangematin, Jing A Zhang, James A. CunninghamAbstract:Abstract This paper examines the role identity of university based Principal Investigators (PIs), as well as the learning mechanisms that underpin this position. PIs have become the focus of increasing research attention which has argued that they, along with universities and funding bodies, form an increasingly crucial tripartite in public research environments. Although the PI position is well recognised among scientific peers and research institutions, a role identity is still emerging and remains ill-defined. This issue requires research attention as having a clear role identity is fundamental to performing a role effectively. Our analysis draws on interviews with 41 health science PIs in New Zealand to develop a PI role identity learning framework. We find that the PI role identity is made up of four roles – science networker, research contractor, project manager, and entrepreneur - that are mutually reinforcing throughout the research process, and which together form a hybrid science-business role identity. Furthermore, we identify two learning mechanisms – learning through experience and violation – and show how these are formative for role identity when transitioning to an ill-defined position. Based on our findings we discuss a number of practical implications for PIs, universities and funding bodies.
-
how Principal Investigators commercial experience influences technology transfer and market impacts
Research-technology Management, 2020Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Brendan Dolan, Matthias Menter, Conor Okane, Paul OreillyAbstract:Overview: Businesses can benefit from university–industry collaborations, yet they rarely take full advantage of them. Scientists who serve as Principal Investigators (PIs) act as the nucleus of un...
-
value creation in the quadruple helix a micro level conceptual model of Principal Investigators as value creators
R & D Management, 2018Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Matthias Menter, Conor OkaneAbstract:Conceptual models of the quadruple helix have largely taken a macro perspective. While these macro perspectives have motivated debates and studies, they fall short in understanding value creation activities at the micro level of the quadruple helix. The purpose of this paper is to address this deficit by focusing on the fundamental research question how value is collectively created, captured, and enhanced at the micro level of the quadruple helix. Drawing on theoretical considerations centred on simmelian ties, boundary work and value postures (motives, creation, destruction, and drivers), we develop a micro level conceptual model of Principal Investigators (PIs) as value creators in the quadruple helix. Scientists in the PI role engage in boundary spanning activities with other quadruple helix actors. This engagement builds strong simmelian ties with these actors and enables PIs to develop collective value motives by bridging diverse knowledge and creating common value motives. Our conceptual model extends our understanding of the quadruple helix at the micro level and highlights the importance of PIs having strong simmelian in order to realise collective and individual value motives. The paper concludes with some suggestions for future avenues of research on this important topic.
-
enablers and barriers to university technology transfer engagements with small and medium sized enterprises perspectives of Principal Investigators
Small Enterprise Research, 2017Co-Authors: Paul Oreilly, James A. CunninghamAbstract:ABSTRACTThis paper seeks to bring forward the Principal Investigator (PI) observations on the enablers and barriers to successful technology transfer of university research to small- and medium-siz...
-
what factors inhibit publicly funded Principal Investigators commercialization activities
Small Enterprise Research, 2017Co-Authors: Conor Okane, James A. Cunningham, Jing A Zhang, Paul OreillyAbstract:ABSTRACTThis paper examines what factors publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs) perceive as inhibiting their involvement in commercialization activities. PIs are important knowledge brokers in public science but while the emerging literature on PIs has primarily focused on identifying their multitude of roles and responsibilities, much less is known about their experiences in commercialization specifically. It remains unknown what challenges inhibit PIs from pursuing commercialization when shaping their competitive research proposals. To begin to address this topic, this study draws on semi-structured interviews with 24 funded health science PIs in New Zealand. The study found that a lack of confidence in the expectations and consistency of funding body review processes, as well as a lack of appropriate support and resources within the university, can deter PIs from incorporating commercialization activities in their research agendas. The implications of these findings for the literature and practi...
Conor Okane - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how university based Principal Investigators shape a hybrid role identity
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020Co-Authors: Conor Okane, Vincent Mangematin, Jing A Zhang, James A. CunninghamAbstract:Abstract This paper examines the role identity of university based Principal Investigators (PIs), as well as the learning mechanisms that underpin this position. PIs have become the focus of increasing research attention which has argued that they, along with universities and funding bodies, form an increasingly crucial tripartite in public research environments. Although the PI position is well recognised among scientific peers and research institutions, a role identity is still emerging and remains ill-defined. This issue requires research attention as having a clear role identity is fundamental to performing a role effectively. Our analysis draws on interviews with 41 health science PIs in New Zealand to develop a PI role identity learning framework. We find that the PI role identity is made up of four roles – science networker, research contractor, project manager, and entrepreneur - that are mutually reinforcing throughout the research process, and which together form a hybrid science-business role identity. Furthermore, we identify two learning mechanisms – learning through experience and violation – and show how these are formative for role identity when transitioning to an ill-defined position. Based on our findings we discuss a number of practical implications for PIs, universities and funding bodies.
-
how Principal Investigators commercial experience influences technology transfer and market impacts
Research-technology Management, 2020Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Brendan Dolan, Matthias Menter, Conor Okane, Paul OreillyAbstract:Overview: Businesses can benefit from university–industry collaborations, yet they rarely take full advantage of them. Scientists who serve as Principal Investigators (PIs) act as the nucleus of un...
-
value creation in the quadruple helix a micro level conceptual model of Principal Investigators as value creators
R & D Management, 2018Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Matthias Menter, Conor OkaneAbstract:Conceptual models of the quadruple helix have largely taken a macro perspective. While these macro perspectives have motivated debates and studies, they fall short in understanding value creation activities at the micro level of the quadruple helix. The purpose of this paper is to address this deficit by focusing on the fundamental research question how value is collectively created, captured, and enhanced at the micro level of the quadruple helix. Drawing on theoretical considerations centred on simmelian ties, boundary work and value postures (motives, creation, destruction, and drivers), we develop a micro level conceptual model of Principal Investigators (PIs) as value creators in the quadruple helix. Scientists in the PI role engage in boundary spanning activities with other quadruple helix actors. This engagement builds strong simmelian ties with these actors and enables PIs to develop collective value motives by bridging diverse knowledge and creating common value motives. Our conceptual model extends our understanding of the quadruple helix at the micro level and highlights the importance of PIs having strong simmelian in order to realise collective and individual value motives. The paper concludes with some suggestions for future avenues of research on this important topic.
-
what factors inhibit publicly funded Principal Investigators commercialization activities
Small Enterprise Research, 2017Co-Authors: Conor Okane, James A. Cunningham, Jing A Zhang, Paul OreillyAbstract:ABSTRACTThis paper examines what factors publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs) perceive as inhibiting their involvement in commercialization activities. PIs are important knowledge brokers in public science but while the emerging literature on PIs has primarily focused on identifying their multitude of roles and responsibilities, much less is known about their experiences in commercialization specifically. It remains unknown what challenges inhibit PIs from pursuing commercialization when shaping their competitive research proposals. To begin to address this topic, this study draws on semi-structured interviews with 24 funded health science PIs in New Zealand. The study found that a lack of confidence in the expectations and consistency of funding body review processes, as well as a lack of appropriate support and resources within the university, can deter PIs from incorporating commercialization activities in their research agendas. The implications of these findings for the literature and practi...
-
technology transfer executives backwards integration an examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and Principal Investigators
Technovation, 2016Co-Authors: Conor OkaneAbstract:Abstract This paper examines interactions between technology transfer office (TTO) executives and publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs) within the university. Although both actors make important contributions to value creation at the base of the triple helix, their identities remain under development and their interactions have been the subject of little if any empirical inquiry. Drawing on identity transitions and role boundaries, we suggest that PIs’ forward integration in the innovation process and the persistence of strong role boundaries with TTO executives hinders the value-creating potential of their interactions. To examine this issue we study how TTO executives surmount role boundaries to secure effective engagement with PIs. Based on 42 interviews with (15) TTO executives and (27) PIs in New Zealand our results make a number of contributions. For literature we find that TTO executives are leveraging shared ties with funding agencies to offer assistance in the preparation of PIs’ grant applications. Specifically, our findings indicate that TTO executives are probing deeper within the university and becoming more valued at the input side of the value chain as a key intermediary between university and funding bodies than between university and industry. Notably, we find this backward integration by TTOs is timely given PIs’ perceptions that TTO executives have difficulties mastering capabilities related to their more recognized expertise in market validation, business development and industry connectivity. We discuss the implications of these findings for practice, none more so than the challenges they present for the identity work of TTO executives at the micro-foundations of the triple helix.
Vincent Mangematin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how university based Principal Investigators shape a hybrid role identity
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020Co-Authors: Conor Okane, Vincent Mangematin, Jing A Zhang, James A. CunninghamAbstract:Abstract This paper examines the role identity of university based Principal Investigators (PIs), as well as the learning mechanisms that underpin this position. PIs have become the focus of increasing research attention which has argued that they, along with universities and funding bodies, form an increasingly crucial tripartite in public research environments. Although the PI position is well recognised among scientific peers and research institutions, a role identity is still emerging and remains ill-defined. This issue requires research attention as having a clear role identity is fundamental to performing a role effectively. Our analysis draws on interviews with 41 health science PIs in New Zealand to develop a PI role identity learning framework. We find that the PI role identity is made up of four roles – science networker, research contractor, project manager, and entrepreneur - that are mutually reinforcing throughout the research process, and which together form a hybrid science-business role identity. Furthermore, we identify two learning mechanisms – learning through experience and violation – and show how these are formative for role identity when transitioning to an ill-defined position. Based on our findings we discuss a number of practical implications for PIs, universities and funding bodies.
-
Publicly funded Principal Investigators allocation of time for public sector entrepreneurship activities
Economia e Politica Industriale, 2016Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Conor O’kane, Paul O’reilly, Brendan Dolan, Vincent MangematinAbstract:In this paper we explore the allocation of time of publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs) for public sector entrepreneurship activities. We examine their allocation of time in general to research activities and specifically at a project level in relation to the type of research, knowledge transfer activity, project impact, deliberate technology transfer strategy and boundary spanning activities using data from a full population survey of publicly funded PIs in Ireland in science, engineering and technology across national and European research programmes. We find that PIs who spend more time on general research related activities allocated a higher proportion of time to technology transfer activities and that PIs who spend more time on technology activities engaged more in end of project reports and collaborative research with industry. In relation to the importance placed on impact criteria, PIs who spend more time on research placed more importance on technology and market impacts than those spending less time on research related activities. Furthermore, PIs who spend more time on technology transfer placed greater value on technology transfer, market and economic impact. We find projects of PIs spending more time on research related activities had a greater impact on technology transfer and a greater market impact, according to the assessment of respondents, than the projects of PIs spending less time on research activities. Finally, with respect to boundary spanning activities we find PIs spending more time on research engaged more in direct consultation with industry end-users and direct consultation with their technology transfer office at the pre-proposal stage of their selected project and they had significantly larger than average amount of industry partners. We conclude our analysis by considering the implications for public sector entrepreneurship.
-
at the frontiers of scientific advancement the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded Principal Investigators
Journal of Technology Transfer, 2016Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Vincent Mangematin, Conor Okane, Paul OreillyAbstract:This paper aims to unearth the factors that influence scientists in becoming and choosing to become publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs). PIs are the linchpins of knowledge transformation and bridging triple helix actors, particularly academia-industry. At a micro level, PIs are at the nexus of engaging and interacting with other triple helix actors. No study to date has specifically focused on the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded PIs. For scientists taking on the role of a PI represents an important landmark in their research career. Set in an Irish research system we found two main categories of influencing factors—push and pull. Pull factors are where the PI has more choice in choosing to become a PI, where as push factors is where the PI has less choice in choosing to become a PI. Pull factors we identified were control, career ambition and advancement, personal drive and ambition. Pull factors we identified were project dependencies and institutional pressures.
-
publicly funded Principal Investigators as transformative agents of public sector entrepreneurship
International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 2016Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Conor Okane, Paul Oreilly, Vincent MangematinAbstract:National governments consistently implement an array of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities, seeking to generate further economic activity and create new networks and market opportunities that reduce market risks and uncertainties for market-based technology exploiters. This means that scientists taking on the role of being a publicly funded Principal investigator (PI) is at the nexus of science, government and industry, and can have a significant influence and impact on shaping and delivering outcomes of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities. Within the emerging public sector entrepreneurship literature (see Leyden and Link 2015; Link and Link 2009), we argue that publicly funded PIs as key public sector entrepreneurship transformative agents, through scientific novelty and originality involving some creative and innovative processes that can be exploited for opportunities with good market or societal potential. Publicly funded PIs are key agents of what Leyden and Link (2015:14) define as public sector entrepreneurship:
-
managerial challenges of publicly funded Principal Investigators
International Journal of Technology Management, 2015Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Conor Okane, Paul Oreilly, Vincent MangematinAbstract:Principal Investigators (PIs) are at the nexus of university business collaborations through their leadership of funded research grants. In fulfilling their multiple roles, PIs are involved in a range of different activities, from direct scientific supervision of junior scientists, the organisation of new scientific avenues to engaging with industrial partners. With the increased impetus for public research to produce wealth through science commercialisation, research is increasingly orchestrated through programmes which seek to connect research avenues and markets. The role of PIs is of growing importance. The extent of managerial challenges encountered by scientists in the context of their PI role has not been the focus of any empirical studies. This paper examines the managerial challenges experienced by publicly funded PIs. Our study, set in the context of the Irish research system, found three foci of PI managerial challenges - project management, project adaptability and project network management.
Paul Oreilly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how Principal Investigators commercial experience influences technology transfer and market impacts
Research-technology Management, 2020Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Brendan Dolan, Matthias Menter, Conor Okane, Paul OreillyAbstract:Overview: Businesses can benefit from university–industry collaborations, yet they rarely take full advantage of them. Scientists who serve as Principal Investigators (PIs) act as the nucleus of un...
-
enablers and barriers to university technology transfer engagements with small and medium sized enterprises perspectives of Principal Investigators
Small Enterprise Research, 2017Co-Authors: Paul Oreilly, James A. CunninghamAbstract:ABSTRACTThis paper seeks to bring forward the Principal Investigator (PI) observations on the enablers and barriers to successful technology transfer of university research to small- and medium-siz...
-
what factors inhibit publicly funded Principal Investigators commercialization activities
Small Enterprise Research, 2017Co-Authors: Conor Okane, James A. Cunningham, Jing A Zhang, Paul OreillyAbstract:ABSTRACTThis paper examines what factors publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs) perceive as inhibiting their involvement in commercialization activities. PIs are important knowledge brokers in public science but while the emerging literature on PIs has primarily focused on identifying their multitude of roles and responsibilities, much less is known about their experiences in commercialization specifically. It remains unknown what challenges inhibit PIs from pursuing commercialization when shaping their competitive research proposals. To begin to address this topic, this study draws on semi-structured interviews with 24 funded health science PIs in New Zealand. The study found that a lack of confidence in the expectations and consistency of funding body review processes, as well as a lack of appropriate support and resources within the university, can deter PIs from incorporating commercialization activities in their research agendas. The implications of these findings for the literature and practi...
-
at the frontiers of scientific advancement the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded Principal Investigators
Journal of Technology Transfer, 2016Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Vincent Mangematin, Conor Okane, Paul OreillyAbstract:This paper aims to unearth the factors that influence scientists in becoming and choosing to become publicly funded Principal Investigators (PIs). PIs are the linchpins of knowledge transformation and bridging triple helix actors, particularly academia-industry. At a micro level, PIs are at the nexus of engaging and interacting with other triple helix actors. No study to date has specifically focused on the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded PIs. For scientists taking on the role of a PI represents an important landmark in their research career. Set in an Irish research system we found two main categories of influencing factors—push and pull. Pull factors are where the PI has more choice in choosing to become a PI, where as push factors is where the PI has less choice in choosing to become a PI. Pull factors we identified were control, career ambition and advancement, personal drive and ambition. Pull factors we identified were project dependencies and institutional pressures.
-
publicly funded Principal Investigators as transformative agents of public sector entrepreneurship
International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 2016Co-Authors: James A. Cunningham, Conor Okane, Paul Oreilly, Vincent MangematinAbstract:National governments consistently implement an array of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities, seeking to generate further economic activity and create new networks and market opportunities that reduce market risks and uncertainties for market-based technology exploiters. This means that scientists taking on the role of being a publicly funded Principal investigator (PI) is at the nexus of science, government and industry, and can have a significant influence and impact on shaping and delivering outcomes of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities. Within the emerging public sector entrepreneurship literature (see Leyden and Link 2015; Link and Link 2009), we argue that publicly funded PIs as key public sector entrepreneurship transformative agents, through scientific novelty and originality involving some creative and innovative processes that can be exploited for opportunities with good market or societal potential. Publicly funded PIs are key agents of what Leyden and Link (2015:14) define as public sector entrepreneurship:
Tracy Balboni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Roadmap for conducting psychosocial research in epidemiological studies: perspectives of cohort study Principal Investigators
BMJ, 2020Co-Authors: M Austin Argentieri, Bobak Seddighzadeh, Sarah Noveroske Philbrick, Tracy Balboni, Alexandra ShieldsAbstract:BackgroundPsychosocial adversity disproportionately affects racial/ethnic and socioeconomic minorities in the USA, and therefore understanding the mechanisms through which psychosocial stress and resilience influence human health can provide meaningful insights into addressing US health disparities. Despite this promise, psychosocial factors are infrequently and unsystematically collected in the US prospective cohort studies.MethodsWe sought to understand prospective cohort Principal Investigators’ (PIs’) attitudes regarding the importance of psychosocial influences on disease aetiology, in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research. One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs representing 24 US prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), collectively capturing health data on 1.25 of every 100 American adults. A hypothesis-free, grounded theory approach was used to analyse and interpret interview data.ResultsMost cohort PIs view psychosocial factors as an important research area to further our understanding of disease aetiology and agree that this research will be crucial for future public health innovations. Virtually all PIs emphasised that future psychosocial research will need to elucidate biological and behavioural mechanisms in order to be taken seriously by the epidemiological community more broadly. A lack of pertinent funding mechanisms and a lack of consensus on optimal scales and measures of psychosocial factors were identified as additional barriers to advancing psychosocial research.ConclusionsOur interviews emphasised the need for: (1) high-quality, longitudinal studies that investigate biological mechanisms and pathways through which psychosocial factors influence health, (2) effort among epidemiological cohorts to broaden and harmonise the measures they use across cohorts, to facilitate replication of results and (3) the need for targeted funding opportunities from NIH and other grant-making institutions to study these domains.
-
building towards common psychosocial measures in u s cohort studies Principal Investigators views regarding the role of religiosity and spirituality in human health
BMC Public Health, 2020Co-Authors: Alexandra E Shields, Tracy BalboniAbstract:The goal of this study was to understand prospective cohort study Principal Investigators’ (PIs’) attitudes regarding the importance of religion and spirituality (R/S) on disease etiology in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research. One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs, who represent 24 different National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded prospective cohort studies in the U.S. Collectively, these PIs collect detailed health data on approximately 1.25 of every 100 adult Americans. Sample size was calculated to achieve thematic saturation. The majority of PIs we interviewed viewed R/S as potentially important factors influencing disease etiology, particularly among minority communities that report higher levels of religiosity. Yet nearly all PIs interviewed felt there was not yet a compelling body of evidence elucidating R/S influences on health, and the potential mechanisms through which R/S may be operating to affect health outcomes. PIs identified 5 key areas that would need to be addressed before they would be persuaded to collect more R/S measures in their cohorts: (1) high-quality, prospective studies that include all appropriate covariates for the outcome under study; (2) studies that posit a plausible biological mechanism of effect; (3) well-validated R/S measures, collected in common across multiple cohorts; (4) the need to address bias against R/S research among Investigators; and (5) NIH funding for R/S research. Results of this study provide a roadmap for future R/S research investigating the impact of R/S influences on disease etiology within the context of U.S. prospective cohort studies. Identifying significant R/S influences on health could inform novel interventions to improve population health. Given the higher levels of religiosity/spirituality among minority communities, R/S research may also provide new leverage points for reducing health disparities.
