Search

Examining academics 'engagement with non-academics in industry, public agencies and charities, this paper examines gender gaps between men and women. Using a large-scale survey of UK academics, we find that although there is difference between women and men in the commercial areas of engagement, with men being more active in this domain than their women colleagues of a similar age and experience and of the same rank, discipline, and university, this pattern is reversed for academic engagement with the third sector, with women more likely to engage with charities, regardless of career stage and research field. We explore the gendered nature of academic engagement, and discuss policy implications arising from it.

Although academics are increasingly expected to share their research data and materials with other academics, many appear reluctant to do so. While extant research emphasises commercial involvement and peer influence as determinants of withholding behaviour, we hypothesise that the volume of competing commitments plays an important role in preventing academics from sharing. Using rich, multi-source data on 876 academics at a large research university, we explore how withholding behaviour is related to the breadth of professional and family roles. We find that academics engaged in more activities, including research, teaching and commercialisation, and with more young children, are more likely than their colleagues to withhold research data and materials from their previously published research. We explore the implications of these findings for scientific production and exchange, and for academics' workloads.

The structure of advice and support networks within organizations has a profound impact on the elaboration of novel ideas. We explore how the sequence in which individuals expose ideas to their network contacts affects their innovation performance. We argue that, during idea elaboration, inside-out network sequencing—that is, mobilizing input and support from inner-circle ties before outer-circle ones—yields an innovation performance advantage over outside-in network sequencing and all-in-one mobilization of network contacts. Inside-out network sequencing generates valuable early feedback and support from inner-circle ties that actively engage with ill-defined, ill-structured, and uncertain ideas, and delays exposure to outer-circle ties until ideas can better withstand criticism from beyond the social circle where they emerged. We further contend that the benefits of inside-out network sequencing are amplified in environments that lack support for innovation. Using an analysis of survey data and archival innovation performance records for 301 research and development scientists and engineers in a large multinational firm, we find support for our predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizations typically employ a division of labor between specialist creator roles and generalist business roles in a bid to orchestrate innovation. We seek to determine the extent to which individuals dividing the work across roles can also benefit from dividing their network. We argue that collaborating individuals benefit from connecting to the same groups but different individuals within those groups—an approach we label dual networking—rather than from a pure divide-and-conquer approach. To test this argument, we study a dual career-ladder setting in a large multinational in which R&D managers and technologists partner up in their quest for innovation. We find that collaborators who engage in dual networking attain an innovation performance advantage over those who connect to distinct groups. This advantage stems from the opportunity to engage in the dual interpretation of input the partners receive, as well as from dual influencing that helps them to gain momentum for their proposed innovations, and it leads to more effective elaboration and championing of their ideas. In demonstrating these effects, we advance understanding of how collaborators organize their networking activities to best achieve innovative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academics often judge themselves and are judged by others according to the status of the journals in which they publish. Little is known about whether individual scholars would choose to publish a paper in a high‐status journal if it would garner similar or lower levels of scholarly impact than a paper published in a lower‐status journal. Drawing upon status theory, we explore whether and how much business school academics are willing to 'pay', as captured by a hypothetical level of 'forfeited' citations, to publish in high‐status 4* journals rather than leading specialized 4‐rated journals. Using choice‐set design and survey data from UK business and management scholars, we suggest and empirically demonstrate that the willingness to forgo citations to publish in 4* journals is strongest among academics who have already published in 4* and/or 4‐rated journals. Contrary to our expectations, we find that an individual's existing scholarly impact, as captured by prior citations, has no effect on this preference. We also show that academics working in high‐ranked institutions would give up more citations for 4* journal publication than those working at lower‐ranked institutions. We explore the implications of these findings for theories of academic status, journal rankings and research assessment systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]