Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level
By G. Melin. 2000
579 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Statistics and Probability, Strategy and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b0473fd4b45ece8d2e5da559769c2f0994b9657c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Statistics and Probability
- Christoph Grimpe
- Loet Leydesdorff
- Heide Loehlein Fier
- J. Edler
- Caroline S. Wagner
- Branco Leonidov Ponomariov
- Gabriela Dutrenit
- C. Fuentes
In Strategy and Management
- Christoph Grimpe
- Heide Loehlein Fier
- J. Edler
- Branco Leonidov Ponomariov
- Maksim Belitski
- Gabriela Dutrenit
- C. Fuentes
- R. Vandeberg
Citations in the corpus
- Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit (2012, background): “The authors focus either on PRO (e.g., Melin, 2000; Bozeman and Corley, 2004; Eun, et al. 2006; D’Este and Patel, 2007; Boardman and Ponomariov, 2009; Göransson, et al. 2009; D’Este and Perkmann, 2010; Wigren et al, 2011) or on the perspective of firms (e.g., Laursen and Salter, 2004; Hanel and…”
- Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries (2012, background): “However, scholars have cautioned that these trends are not uniform, but must be contextualized by domain and by country (Lariviere, Gingras, & Archambault, 2006) and by field of study (Abt, 2007; Glänzel & de Lange, 2002; Melin, 2000; Egghe, 1999).”
- Co-authorship and the output of academic economists (2001, background): “In a recent survey by Melin (2000), about 25% of researchers cited “social reasons” when asked the reasons for collaboration.”
- Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital (2004, background): “…Thorsteinsdottir, 2000; Beaver, 2001), to encourage cross-fertilization across disciplines (Beaver and Rosen, 1978, 1979a,b; Katz and Martin, 1997; Melin, 2000), to improve access to funds (Smith, 1958; Clarke, 1967; Heffner, 1981; Beaver, 2001), to obtain prestige or visibility (Crane, 1972;…”
- Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment (2008, background): “Even though most policies encouraging university-industry relations and collaborations are directed towards institutions, sooner or later the collaborations need to materialize between specific individuals who engage in cross-sector collaboration and communication (Melin 2000).”
- International Scientist Mobility and the Locus of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (2011, background): “With respect to resource-driven considerations, scientists seek access to complementary knowledge, expertise and resources just like firms do (Katz and Martin, 1997; Melin, 2000; Thorsteinsdottir, 2000; Beaver, 2001).”
- Collaboration Paradox (2005, background): “Output-oriented or pragmatic reasons to collaborate (Melin 2000) include access to special equipment, special skills, unique materials, visibility, recognition, time eff iciency, labor efficiency, gaining experience, trai ning researchers, sponsoring a protégé, increase productivity, multip ly profi”
- A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers (2008, background): “…is to cope with a changing environment by getting access to a broader set of skills and resources. olicy 37 (2008) 1255–1266 This is confirmed by many of the reasons for scientific collaboration found by Melin (2000) and is in line with the generalist/specialist theory by Hannan and Freeman (1989).”
- Network Structure, Self-Organization and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science.Research Policy, 34(10), 2005, 1608-1618. (2005, background): “They, in turn, can choose carefully among the many opportunities to work with others: As Melin (2000) found, senior researchers would work with junior people to gain higher productivity and credibility within their field.”
- Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding? (2019, background): “…and with public or university ownership 372 of the research outcomes, while direct industrial funding provides additional commercialization 373 income, access to industry financial and technical resources, infrastructure, scientists and data 374 (Melin, 2000; Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez, 2016).”