Abstract
Principal investigators are the lead actors on projects at the forefront of nascent technologies, yet few studies have explored the personal actions and experiences of PIs as they navigate their roles. I investigated principal investigators and their approach to new boundary spanning and entrepreneurial roles. Following a multiple case study methodology with a combination of interviews and observation, four PIs in nanotechnology related fields are explored in three dimensions: career and institutional alignment, boundary spanning activities and the tensions created in the still largely uncharted waters of nanotechnology commercialization. I found that these PIs actively sought organizational alignment that allowed them “to make things happen” while keeping harmony between the university and enterprise. The PIs demonstrated boundary-spanning activities, in particular a propensity for welcoming strangers into their labs in the hopes of finding new knowledge and opportunities, and practicing “good grantsmanship” to convert these new relations into collaboration. I found that the PIs managed tensions related to academic progression and lack of institutional support. Through this study, I offer researchers an opportunity to hear the voice of PIs on these topics and seek to contribute to our understanding of PIs as critical actors in the pursuit of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of the four cases, only P1 never pursued tenure.
Bozeman and Corley looked at women in their study. While this study did not inquire about the PIs work with women versus men in particular, but all of the PIs in the study had women in critical roles on their teams.
References
Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145–158.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.
Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 430–463.
Boardman, C. P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29, 142–153.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.
Butler, J. (2002). The science and practice of new business ventures: Wealth creation and prosperity through entrepreneurship growth and renewal. Presented at the Coleman Foundation Whitepaper.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.
Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34, 349–367.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
Fowler, F. (2008). Survey research methods, applied social research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2009). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 527–546.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.
Lam, A. (2010). From “Ivory Tower Traditionalists” to “Entrepreneurial Scientists”?: Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University–industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307–340.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39, 589–601.
Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169–181.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16, 641–655.
Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29, 741.
Mangematin, V., & Walsh, S. (2012). The future of nanotechnologies. Technovation, 32(3–4), 157–160.
Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 251–270.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267–292.
Rowinsky, E. K. (2005). Erosion of the principal investigator role in a climate of industry dominance. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 2206–2209.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 643–671.
Shinn, T. (1988). Hiérarchies des chercheurs et formes de recherche. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 74, 2–22.
Shinn, T., & Lamy, E. (2006). Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university–enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35, 1465–1476.
Stephan, P., Black, G. C., & Chang, T. (2007). The small size of the small scale market: The early-stage labor market for highly skilled nanotechnology workers. Research Policy, 36, 887–892.
Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–144.
Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 289–305.
Wolff, K. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Barry Bozeman (Univ of Athens), Vincent Mangematin (Grenoble Ecole de Management), Severine Louvel (IEP Grenoble), the anonymous reviewers of The Journal of Technology Transfer, my colleagues at the 2011 Nanowinter School in Pinsot, France and Valérie Sabatier (Grenoble Ecole de Management) for their helpful comments of the previous version of the paper. Usual caveats apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kidwell, D.K. Navigating the role of the principal investigator: a comparison of four cases. J Technol Transf 39, 33–51 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9276-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9276-5
Keywords
- Principal investigators
- Boundary spanning
- Entrepreneurial scientists
- Academic entrepreneurship
- Grantsmanship