The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers

  • Vincent Mangematin
  • Paul O’Reilly
  • James Cunningham


The research program organization has been generalized to implement research policies in OECD countries. Principal investigators are the linchpin of the program based organization as they are developing research project to fit within programs. However, principal investigators are not only project managers but they also enact their environment, shape organization, heterogenous networks, research avenues, research communities and transepistemic arenas. Principal investigators are not only researchers they are also boundary spanners amongst academic and private sectors and amongst subfields and disciplines. Principal investigators, especially serial Principal investigators act as scientific entrepreneurs who enact their environment. It questions the relationship between principal investigators and their organization. It also questions the efficiency and effectiveness of program based research policy.


Scientific entrepreneurs Principal investigators Enactment Research avenues 

JEL Classification

M1 O31 O32 


  1. Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baglieri, D., & Lorenzoni, G. (2013). Closing the distance between academia and market. Experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. Birnbaum-More, P.-H., Rossini, F.-A., & Baldwin, D.-R. (1990). International research management: Studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government, and academia (p. 221). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2013). Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, D., & Hogan, T. (2013). ‘A jack of all trades’––The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1989). On the construction of sociotechnical networks: Content and context revisited, Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of science past and present. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Casati, A., & Genet, C. (2013). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. Catherine, D., Corolleur, C., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: The experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33(4), 631–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2011). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2013). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamic of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feeney, M., & Welsh, E. (2013). Academic outcomes among principal Investigators, co-principal investigators, and non-PI researchers. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  15. Frestedt, J. (2008). The role and impact of the principal investigator. Monitor, 31–35 (Sept).Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M. (1994). Transfer sciences: Management of distributed knowledge production. Empirica, 21(3), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jimenez-Saez, F., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Zofio, J. L., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2011). Evaluating research efficiency within national R&D programmes. Research Policy, 40(2), 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kato, M., & Odagiri, H. (2012). Development of university life-science programs and university/industry joint research in Japan. Research Policy, 41(5), 939–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kidwell, D. (2013). Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1977). Producing and reproducing knowledge: Descriptive and constructive? Social Science Information, 6, 669–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laredo, P. (2003). Six major challenges facing public intervention in higher education, science, technology and innovation. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leigh Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s meseum of vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan, M. S. (2012). The world in the model: How economists work and think. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2 revisited’: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tyler, J. E. (2011). Redeploying Bayh-Dole: Beyond Merely doing good to optimizing the potential in results of taxpayer-funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  28. Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management and organization studies : A bibliometric analysis of academic journals. Organization Studies, 33(8), 1015–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wu, Y. (2010). Tackling undue concentration of federal research funding: An empirical assessment on NSF’s experimental program to stimulate competitive research (EPSCoR). Research Policy, 39(6), 835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Mangematin
    • 1
  • Paul O’Reilly
    • 2
  • James Cunningham
    • 3
  1. 1.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  3. 3.National University of GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations