Managing Strategic Research: An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company

Vedel, Jane Bjørn Doctoral Thesis Managing Strategic Research: An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company PhD Series, No. 4.2014 Provided in Cooperation with: Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Suggested Citation: Vedel, Jane Bjørn (2014) : Managing Strategic Research: An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company, PhD Series, No. 4.2014, ISBN 9788793155091, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Frederiksberg, https://hdl.handle.net/10398/8881 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/208882 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Jane Bjørn Vedel PhD Series 04.2014 PhD Series 04.2014 Managing Strategic Research copenhagen business school handelshøjskolen solbjerg plads 3 dk-2000 frederiksberg danmark www.cbs.dk ISSN 0906-6934 Print ISBN: 978-87-93155-08-4 Online ISBN: 978-87-93155-09-1 Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies Managing Strategic Research An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company Managing Strategic Research An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company Jane Bjørn Vedel Supervisor: Professor Alan Irwin (Copenhagen Business School) Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies Copenhagen Business School Jane Bjørn Vedel Managing Strategic Research An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company 1st edition 2014 PhD Series 04.2014 © The Author ISSN 0906-6934 Print ISBN: 978-87-93155-08-4 Online ISBN: 978-87-93155-09-1 The Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies (OMS) is an interdisciplinary research environment at Copenhagen Business School for PhD students working on theoretical and empirical themes related to the organisation and management of private, public and voluntary organizations. All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 1 Table of contents 1. Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 2. Dansk resumé .................................................................................................. 11 3. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 16 4. Preface ................................................................................................................ 20 5. Introduction to the thesis ............................................................................ 26 Research questions ......................................................................................................... 29 The structure of the thesis ........................................................................................... 29 6. Introduction to Lundbeck ............................................................................ 32 The sense of research in Lundbeck .......................................................................... 38 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 44 7. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 46 An Industrial PhD set-up .............................................................................................. 46 Fieldwork in Lundbeck .................................................................................................. 47 From external collaboration to strategic research ............................................ 48 Following the actor ......................................................................................................... 51 Participant observation ................................................................................................. 52 Ethno-epistemic assemblages .................................................................................... 53 Constructing strategic research in Lundbeck as a doable problem ........... 56 Articulation work and access to meetings ............................................................ 58 Articulation work and the nature of my research.............................................. 60 Disconcertment ................................................................................................................. 62 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 65 8. Strategic research in Denmark .................................................................. 67 2 Strategic research and free research ....................................................................... 70 Relevance and strategic quality ................................................................................. 75 Linear models of research ............................................................................................ 77 Strategic research as Pasteur’s quadrant .............................................................. 80 The role of research management in Danish policy .......................................... 83 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 86 9. Conceptual framework ................................................................................. 88 Bridging gaps and breaking barriers ....................................................................... 88 Finding the right partners and means of interaction ....................................... 93 Pasteur scientists and Mode 2 activities ................................................................ 96 A stable image of interaction ................................................................................... 101 The dynamics of interaction: The Triple Helix ................................................. 102 Science and society in partnership ........................................................................ 108 Asymmetrical descriptions of science and society ......................................... 110 From interaction to co-production ........................................................................ 114 A co-production framework ..................................................................................... 115 Boundary objects ...................................................................................................... 117 Doable problems ....................................................................................................... 119 Trading zones ............................................................................................................. 121 Constructing alignment and misaligned co-production ............................... 123 Introducing screens ..................................................................................................... 125 Screens in STS ................................................................................................................. 127 Screens as emergent relations and multiple justifications ......................... 129 The multiple screens of collaboration .................................................................. 131 Projecting screens .................................................................................................... 133 Categorizing screens................................................................................................ 135 Occluding screens ..................................................................................................... 136 3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 139 10. Managing emergent relations ................................................................. 141 Becoming interested in science-industry collaboration ............................... 142 The neurocell collaboration ...................................................................................... 145 The transfer document ................................................................................................ 149 The double payment ..................................................................................................... 155 Strategic-explorative research ................................................................................. 159 Collaboration as “many different entrances” ..................................................... 163 Managing research through contracts .................................................................. 165 Dissolving screens ......................................................................................................... 166 Screens and doable problems ................................................................................... 168 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 173 11. The first encounter ..................................................................................... 174 Recurrent recalling of disconcerting events ...................................................... 175 The Mayo collaboration............................................................................................... 179 Emergent ideas of collaboration ............................................................................. 182 A science/industry screen.......................................................................................... 185 Changing the screen ...................................................................................................... 187 Managing screens between the management and scientists ...................... 190 “Knowing enough” ......................................................................................................... 194 Mayo Clinic screens: Science/industry ................................................................. 197 Mayo Clinic screens: Science/business ................................................................ 201 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 203 12. Making screens for future research ...................................................... 205 Introducing Synapse ..................................................................................................... 206 Product concepts ............................................................................................................ 209 Transparency and ‘gut feeling’ ................................................................................. 215 4 A research/clinic screen ............................................................................................ 220 The emergence of new boundaries ....................................................................... 226 Synapse and external collaboration ...................................................................... 229 A subtle emphasis on biology .................................................................................. 230 Implications for research managers ..................................................................... 232 Synapse and misaligned co-production............................................................... 234 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 237 13. The project leader of the future .............................................................. 238 Optimize External Research Collaboration ........................................................ 239 Project leader competencies .................................................................................... 245 The multi-faceted research manager.................................................................... 249 The goal coordination meeting ............................................................................... 252 The culture of research ............................................................................................... 253 “The spider in the web” .............................................................................................. 260 Point 5.2 ............................................................................................................................ 265 The behavior work group .......................................................................................... 267 Synaptic outcomes ........................................................................................................ 273 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 276 14. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 278 Main findings................................................................................................................... 278 Strategic research as an strategic-explorative activity ............................. 279 Science-industry collaboration as misaligned co-production ............... 279 Research management as managing emergent relations ........................ 280 Adaptive frameworks .................................................................................................. 281 Screens ............................................................................................................................... 282 Strengths and weaknesses of the notion of screens .................................. 285 Disconcertment .............................................................................................................. 286 5 Implications for future academic work ................................................................ 289 Implications for practitioners................................................................................... 290 Implications for research managers .................................................................. 290 Implications for policy makers ............................................................................ 292 Final reflections .............................................................................................................. 294 15. Appendix A: Vedel et al. 2013 .................................................................. 296 16. Appendix B: List of acronyms .................................................................. 298 17. Appendix C: List of illustrations .............................................................. 300 18. Appendix D: List of key people/pseudonyms .................................... 301 19. References ...................................................................................................... 303 12 universiteter og virksomheder således som to separate domæner, der skal ‘alignes’, for at kunne samarbejde. I forhold til denne analyseramme tilbyder forskningsfeltet Science and Technology Studies (STS) en væsentlig anden tilgang. I første omgang er præmissen for mange STS tilgange, at fænomener som universitets-industri samarbejde bør forstås som ‘co-produced’ (Jasanoff 2004). Co-production er også den analytiske præmis for herværende studie. Baseret på begreber såsom ‘trading zones’ (Galison 1997), ‘doable problems’ (Fujimura 1987, 1996) og ‘boundary objects’ (Star og Griesemer 1989), som alle illustrerer ‘co-production’, udvikler afhandlingen et begrebsapparat, som i særlig grad fokuserer på en undersøgelse af begrebet ‘screens’. Screens foreslås som et begrebsapparat, der er egnet til at undersøge strategiske former for coproduction, som ikke er baseret på adskilte domæner, der skal sammenknyttes. Ved at analysere co-production som processer der både bygger på og genererer forskellige slags screens, tilbyder afhandlingen ny indsigt i dynamikken i universitets-industri samarbejde. Det empiriske fokus i afhandlingen er den danske medicinalvirksomhed Lundbeck, som er specialiseret i at udvikle og producere lægemidler til behandling af neurologiske sygdomme. Baseret på intervenerende deltagende observation undersøger afhandlingen, hvordan forskningsledere i Lundbeck i de senere år har udviklet nye forskningsstrategier og tilgange til forskning. I lighed med andre medicinalvirksomheder har Lundbeck været under stort pres som følge af strukturelle og markedsmæssige ændringer i medicinalindustrien. Dette til trods har Lundbeck udviklet nye forskningsstrategier baseret på en relativt åben og risikobetonet tilgang. Denne tilgang har bl.a. medført intensiveret samarbejde med eksterne akademiske forskningsgrupper med det formål at basere udviklingen af nye lægemidler på mere grundlæggende viden om biologiske mekanismer. Denne kontekst af risiko og usikkerhed udgør en god case 13 for at studere ideer om strategisk forskning, universitets-industri samarbejde og forskningsledelse. Afhandlingen når frem til tre overordnede konklusioner: For det første er strategisk forskning i Lundbeck ikke efterspørgselsdrevet men snarere ‘strategisk-udforskende’. Forskningen skrider frem i en ganske eksperimentel og åben proces frem for at udvikle sig lineært, kontrolleret og forudsigeligt. For det andet udvikler universitets-industri samarbejde sig ikke kun på baggrund af processer, som skaber forbindelser mellem basalt set forskellige domæner eller kulturer. Det udvikler sig også som følge af det som i afhandlingen karakteriseres som ‘misaligned co-production’, hvor eksplicitering af forskelle er en del af samarbejdets dynamik. Sådanne misaligned co-productions finder sted både i eksterne samarbejder og internt i virksomheden. I Lundbeck finder vi eksempelvis cases, hvor industrielle og akademiske aktiviteter er fuldstændig sammenfiltrede. At etablere universitets-industri samarbejde kræver således ikke nødvendigvis en sammenkobling af forskellige kulturer men snarere en løbende og gensidig præcisering af de vigtige forskelle, der også driver samarbejdet. For det tredje drejer ledelse af strategisk forskning sig ikke primært om ‘brobygning’ mellem stabile domæner men om at håndtere relationer, der udvikler sig under foranderlige betingelser. Det betyder ikke, at ledelse sker uden struktur eller strategier men snarere, at der ledes med en forventning om forandring. Begrebet ‘adaptive frameworks’ (Vedel et al. 2013) foreslår en tilgang, som forsøger at indfange de praktiske aspekter af ledelse af strategisk forskning. Afhandlingen har implikationer for forskningspolitik, akademisk forskning og praktisk forskningsledelse. Til forskel fra det nuværende forskningspolitiske fokus på efterspørgselsdrevet innovation viser denne afhandling, at selv internt i virksomheder udvikler efterspørgsel sig ofte i udforskende processer. Efterspørgsel udvikler sig ofte på baggrund af temmelig løse ideer som både har 14 et potentiale og en indbygget forventning om muligheden for forandring. Som følge heraf foreslår afhandlingen, at de noget rigide kategoriseringer af forskning, som i øjeblikket florerer i dansk forskningspolitik, ikke er tilstrækkeligt nuancerede til at indfange, hvad der faktisk er kendetegnende ved strategisk forskning, som det udfolder sig i praksis i virksomheder. Dermed håber afhandlingen at stimulere debat om forskningspolitiske ideer om strategisk forskning, innovation og virksomheder. For at føde ind i en forskningspolitisk diskussion baseret på en ‘brugbar STS’ tilgang (Webster 2007) indikerer afhandlingen endvidere behovet for mere forskning i forlængelse af de tre hovedkonklusioner. Presserende spørgsmål inkluderer blandt andet: Hvad drejer strategisk-udforskende forskning sig om hvis vi ser på flere cases i forskellige virksomheder og industrier? Hvad er de bredere implikationer af at tænke samarbejde som misaligned co-production? Hvad kræver det at lede forskning ved hjælp af adaptive frameworks både i forskningspolitik og i industri? Afhandlingen er struktureret i to dele. Den første del introducerer den empiriske case og begrebsapparatet. Den anden del indeholder fire empiriske kapitler. Hvert af disse kapitler udforsker et eksempel på universitets-industri samarbejde. De første to kapitler undersøger samarbejder mellem Lundbeck og eksterne akademiske forskningsgrupper. Baseret på disse kapitler foreslår afhandlingen, at eksternt samarbejde får strategisk værdi i Lundbeck ved at være udforskende snarere end ved at løse præcist definerede problemer. Disse to kapitler viser også, at samarbejde skrider frem i en kringlet proces, der både skaber ligheder og forskelle mellem forskning og industri. De sidste to kapitler undersøger forsknings-industri samarbejde internt i Lundbeck. Kapitlerne undersøger specifikt, hvordan strategisk forskning ikke kun udvikler sig på baggrund af eksterne samarbejder men også som et resultat af styrket samarbejde mellem 15 forskellige dele af Lundbeck. Inden for Lundbeck finder vi således også eksempler på misaligned co-production, hvilket atter udfordrer ideen om at se universitetsindustri samarbejde udelukkende som ‘brobygning’ mellem domæner. I konklusionen opsamles hovedkonklusioner samt afhandlingens implikationer for videre forskning og praktikere. 16 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project has taken place from 2008 to 2013 and it has involved several institutions and people. I have, therefore, many people to thank. I would like to thank Peter Høngaard Andersen for taking on this project and for inviting me into Lundbeck. Based on our first meeting in August 2008, Peter decided to engage uncompromisingly in the project and to make it part of his reflections on new strategies and approaches to research in Lundbeck. From beginning to end, Peter has set up favorable conditions for the project and made it easy for me to get access to data and people. He has taken a strong interest in my research process and given me valuable advice. I have found our continuous discussions about the nature of research, management and collaboration extremely stimulating and rewarding. Our conversations have always left me with new perspectives on research and I have enjoyed the experience of seeing my ideas circulate in the development of new strategies. I also want to warmly thank my academic supervisor, Alan Irwin. Alan has been a great supervisor for this project, while also being the Dean of Research at Copenhagen Business School. From the beginning, Alan encouraged me to be open and to welcome surprises, both with regard to what my industrial PhD set-up might provide in terms of opportunities and challenges, and to what the empirical material would present. Resisting the impulse to make quick decisions, Alan supported me in thinking flexibly about the material without drowning it in preconceived theory. Alan has played a key role in this project and been an excellent help in pulling together the diverse parts of the projects, in terms of both its practical use and conceptual contributions. 17 I want to thank both Peter and Alan for their collaboration on our joint paper “Externalizing research through adaptive frameworks”, published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (Vedel et al. 2013, see Appendix A). I see this paper as an important result of our collaboration: not only in terms of publishing together, but also in terms of the experience of developing these ideas collectively. It took place in lively, highly engaged discussions about research management in practice and what matters to this subject. Other people have played important roles at different stages of the project. Thanks to Maja Horst for early discussions and for encouraging me to develop these ideas into a PhD project. Also thanks to Randi Markussen, my co-supervisor. Randi played an important role in setting up the PhD project and in helping me see how studies in Lundbeck might link to my practical experience with research policy and management. I thank Randi for very inspiring discussions and for always pointing to important and, for me, new perspectives. A special thanks to Casper Bruun Jensen, both for his continuous support and inspiring conversations over the years, and for detailed comments on various drafts of the thesis. Thanks also to Signe Vikkelsø for providing valuable inputs to the conceptual and methodological framework of the thesis. Thanks to Christopher Gad, my co-author for the paper “A Public Trial de Novo. Rethinking Industrial Interest” (Vedel et al. 2011), for an energetic and fun collaboration based on a shared curiosity for the notion of ‘industrial interest’. A group of people helped me develop the notion of screens. The second empirical chapter is a further development of the paper “A first encounter. Framing research collaboration with screens,” published in a special issue on screens in STS Encounters (Vedel 2011). Thanks to Anna Tsing for discussing the empirical case with me over a three-day stay at Klitgården in Skagen. Also thanks to Brit Ross Winthereik for valuable inputs on the notion screens. I thank the anonymous 18 reviewers of the paper for highly useful comments. Finally, thanks to Helen Verran for discussion and correspondence about the notion of screens. At times this PhD has posed challenges in terms of keeping things together while moving between institutions and work places. I want to thank Thomas Basbøll for providing me with effective tools for planning and structuring academic writing. A special thanks to Tina Wilk for encouraging and valuable inputs on how to handle my different, and sometimes contradictory, ambitions as researcher and practitioner. I am deeply indebted to people at Lundbeck for taking a strong interest in this project. Especially, I thank Marianne Dragsted who made life at Lundbeck very pleasant. With exceptional skill, Marianne solved every problem that we encountered on the way. Thanks also to Kim Andersen, Benny Bang-Andersen, Ann-Louise Bergström, Tina Bott, Lise Tøttrup Brennum, Klaus Bøgesø, Matthew Cascio, Michael Didriksen, Jan Egebjerg, Karina Fog, Ib Vestergaard Klewe, Stine Hove Marsling, Helle Northeved, Jan Thorleif Pedersen, Lise Abildgaard Ryberg, Helle Sickmann, Klaus Bæk Simonsen, Tina Bryan Stensbøl, and Stevin Zorn for inspiring discussions, lively lunch conversation, for teamwork and for inviting me into management group discussions. I also want to thank my colleagues at Copenhagen Business School, Department of Organization, for creating informal and stimulating work conditions. A special thanks to my office colleagues Amalie Hauge-Helgestad, Didde Maria Humle, Mette Brehm Johansen and Marie Henriette Madsen for creating a highly attentive and encouraging office atmosphere. Also sincerely thanks to Karen Boll, Shannon Hessel, Marie Mathiesen, Elisabeth Naima Mikkelsen, Trine Pallesen and Soley Rasmussen who have all provided valuable inputs to the thesis and the process of writing it. Outside Copenhagen Business School, I want to thank Morten Andreasen, Mia Trolle Borup and Lotte Jansen for always thoughtful and high- 19 spirited discussions about the topic of research management that we have common interest in. I want to thank a group of old friends whose continuous support and encouragement over the years has been invaluable for me. Thanks to Marlene Bernth Johansen, Johanne Luise Boesdal, Line Bjørg Jensen, Kristian Knak Nygaard, and Milena Torquati. My interest in researchers, their passions and struggles, developed in my childhood home thanks to my parents, Kaj Vedel and Eva Bjørn Vedel, who are both scientists. Owing to them, I developed a strong interest for science and a curiosity towards the social aspects of science. I thank both for their caring and thoughtful encouragement. In particular, I want to thank my mother, who has been a research manager for many years, for introducing me to the challenges and joys of managing research, collaborating across fields and making research relevant in a broader societal context. Finally, it almost goes without saying that making this thesis would have been impossible without the love and support of my husband, Simon Kiilerich Vedel, and my lovely children, Siri and Eske. 20 4. PREFACE This thesis explores ‘strategic research’ in a Danish pharmaceutical company. Since this topic might obviously be assumed to concern public policy discussions related to strategic research or industrial strategies related to the current crisis in the pharmaceutical industry, it is perhaps worthwhile to say a little about what the thesis is not. This thesis is not primarily concerned with policy, although it gives insights into this area. Certainly, the notion of strategic research gives strong connotations to public policy and, in fact, we rarely hear about strategic research outside the world of policy. In policy, however, strategic research has in recent years played a prominent role. We can see this in both Danish and European research strategies in which strategic research is seen as important for stimulating growth and job creation.1 Today, Danish and European policy makers are deeply involved in defining strategic research and organizing it in the most optimal ways. It would be highly relevant to study these current policy interests in strategic research from within policy institutions but this is not the main focus of this thesis. Likewise, this thesis is not mainly about the pharmaceutical industry, although it gives important insights into the strategies and change processes in one company. The empirical context of a pharmaceutical company gives connotations to the pharmaceutical industry in general. In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has been under significant pressure and consequently new research and business models have emerged.2 It would therefore be highly relevant to explore what 1 See the Danish “Innovation Strategy” (Regeringen 2012) and the European research framework program “Horizon 2020”. 2 See Vedel et al. 2013 for further discussion. Also, see Munos 2009. 21 characterize these new models and investigate their implications for the pharmaceutical industry as such but this has not been the primary concern of this thesis. The starting point of the thesis is rather the phenomenon that in these years, policy makers and industrial research managers share interests in exploring the potential of science-industry collaboration, in policy often referred to as university-industry collaboration. In a Danish research policy context, policymakers see university-industry collaboration almost as identical to strategic research. Among pharmaceutical companies, research managers have seen collaboration with external academic groups as an important tool for developing new insights and overcoming the crisis. But, although we might identify shared interests in science-industry collaboration, public policymakers and industrial research managers have quite unlike approaches to science-industry collaboration. Based on a curiosity concerning these dissimilarities, the thesis investigates the following questions: What characterizes strategic research in a private company? Through which practices does strategic research (and scienceindustry collaboration) develop? What characterizes the management of strategic research? I start out by describing how I came into this study since it has implications for how I define the field of research of this thesis. From the beginning of 2006 to the end of 2008 I was employed at a Danish public foundation, the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF), established in 2006 to give public funds to research collaborations between public research institutions and private companies. The foundation had a board and staff, and its administration was independent of the existing research advising and funding system. During the first year, the foundation developed what it referred to as strategies and instruments. One of the questions raised at this time was how to set up the foundation in a way that would make it possible to 28 projects ought to be supported by which institutions. As a consequence of being placed in the middle, strategic research is often presented as research that “connects” (Regeringen 2012) the diverse domains of science, society and industry in contrast to independent research that according to this image is slightly more isolated from society. In the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), strategic research is interesting not least at the level of practice. In its emphasis on practice, STS approaches differ from many other perspectives on strategic research (for instance, based on economics or political science) that focus on defining its conceptual meaning, resulting in general definitions of strategic research (Emmeche and Faye 2010). Working within a broadly ‘co-productionist’ perspective on STS (Jasanoff 2004), and rather than attempting to give an exact definition of what strategic research means, I am interested in how strategic research develops at the level of practical research engagements and in which diverse forms it takes there. How and through which processes, I ask, does strategic research develop in the context of Lundbeck’s pharmaceutical research? Accordingly, the present study explores the notion of strategic research in the context of Lundbeck. Lundbeck is a Danish global research-based company that specializes in drugs for the treatment of disorders in the central nervous system (CNS). Like many other pharmaceutical companies, Lundbeck has been affected by changing research and market conditions in the pharmaceutical industry. Although pharmaceutical companies today make larger investments in research and development than ever before, fewer research and development projects result in new molecular entities that reach the market in the form of drugs (Munos et al. 2009). Many factors contribute to this situation, including changes in the regulatory system and in public concerns over risks in various diseases. For Lundbeck, the expiration of a number of key patents between 2012 and 2014 has 29 increased the pressure. Research managers in Lundbeck have seen this crisis as an occasion for rethinking their research strategies and opening up to the surrounding world, for instance, by engaging in strategic collaborations with external research groups at universities and in companies. Lundbeck, therefore, offers an excellent case for examining the management of strategic research in a corporate context. Based on this situation, I am interested in examining the following research questions: Research questions What characterizes strategic research in a private company? Through which practices does strategic research (and science-industry collaboration) develop? What characterizes the management of strategic research? Unsurprisingly, these are questions that research managers in Lundbeck also ask themselves. In addition, I consider what the fields of public research policy and STS might learn about strategic research by studying it empirically in industry. This is interesting insofar as industry is precisely what policymakers argue that strategic research should connect with. The structure of the thesis The thesis is organized in two parts. The first part introduces the empirical field, the methodology and the conceptual framework of the thesis. I first give an introduction to Lundbeck and describe how I have studied Lundbeck using an active form of participant observation. Then I take a step back to explore how the notion of strategic research has developed in Danish research policy with particular embedded ideas about companies. I use this understanding of the setting of Danish national discussions of strategic research as a springboard for 30 exploring prevalent approaches to university-industry interaction in research policy literature such as the Triple Helix and Mode 2. These approaches then become a platform for investigating alternative ‘co-productionist’ approaches (Jasanoff 2004) to research collaboration, in particular ‘boundary objects’ (Star and Griesemer 1989), ‘doable problems’ (Fujimura 1987, 1996) and ‘trading zones’ (Galison 1997). While these notions generally focus on processes of constructing alignment in heterogeneous scientific practices, I argue that it is equally interesting to explore the role of difference in research collaboration, and hence in strategic research. I show that difference can be elicited by paying attention to a number of ‘screens’ that I develop for the purpose of this thesis, which I refer to as projecting, categorizing, occluding screens. In various ways, these screens are useful for developing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of strategic research. The second part of the thesis offers an empirical exploration of strategic research in Lundbeck based on four empirical chapters. The first two chapters explore strategic research as illustrated by science-industry collaboration between Lundbeck and external academic groups. The final two chapters look at in-house collaboration between different parts of Lundbeck as also illustrative of strategic research. The first chapter “Managing emergent relations” presents a case in which Lundbeck research managers collaborate with academic researchers from a university. The participants are all interested in advancing research in the biological mechanism neurocell. However, they do this in a somewhat surprising way that challenges both the idea of strategic research as a restricted and predictable form of research and the general notions of what is academic and what is industrial. 31 The second chapter entitled “The first encounter” explores yet another case of collaboration between Lundbeck and an external academic group, this time the Mayo Clinic, an American not-for-profit research institution. The chapter investigates the phenomenon that a failed first meeting between the two groups did not prevent the collaboration from eventually becoming a success. I explore how this can be understood by describing the differentiating screens that characterized the collaboration. The third chapter called “Making screens for future research” explores how strategic research also develops in-house Lundbeck, in the context of a strategy process called Synapse. This strategy seeks to connect diverse parts of Lundbeck and develop strategic research areas based on collaboration between preclinical and clinical research. The chapter investigates how different screens are involved in developing these strategic research areas. The forth chapter is entitled “The project leader of the future” and it investigates how the notion of project leadership develops in relation to the development of new strategic research practices. The project leader is seen as connecting diverse parts of Lundbeck but also as particular to research practices in Lundbeck. The chapter investigates the project leader notion using an active interventionist approach and explores the screens that became visible. In conclusion, I present the main findings and discuss the implications of these for practitioners and for future research. But first, let me introduce the empirical context of Lundbeck. 32 6. INTRODUCTION TO LUNDBECK Lundbeck is a Danish global pharmaceutical company that specializes in drugs for the treatment of disorders in the central nervous system (CNS), sometimes also referred to as brain diseases. The company was founded in 1915 and today it employs 6,000 people worldwide out of which 2,000 are employed in Denmark. This makes Lundbeck one of the largest companies in Denmark. Lundbeck presents itself as “fully integrated”4, which means that it engages in research, development, production, marketing and sale of pharmaceuticals. CNS disorders include depression, anxiety, psychotic disorders, epilepsy, Huntington, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. However, as a consequence of a new research strategy, Lundbeck might expand the number of CNS diseases it engages in. Lundbeck is particularly known for Cipralex and Lexapro, both of which are based on escitalopram, an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor class known as SSRI, for the treatment of depression. Today, Lundbeck’s general management consists of the Executive Management that has three members. Ulf Wiinberg who is President and CEO of Lundbeck heads this group and is responsible for commercial operations. The Executive Management also includes the Head of Research and Development, which includes the area of Patents and Trademarks, and the Head of Finance, IT, Sourcing, Commercial and Investor Relations. In addition to the three areas that the Executive Management covers, the organization of Lundbeck is divided into six other areas. These are Corporate Business Development and Strategy; Corporate Human Resources; Corporate Legal; Corporate Secretariat and Project Office; Corporate Public Affairs; and Supply Operations and Engineering. A senior 4 www.lundbeck.com. 33 vice president heads each of these areas. The headquarters of Lundbeck are located in Valby, part of the Copenhagen Municipality. This short introduction portrays how Lundbeck is organized as of 2013, but, as I will show, the formal organization of Lundbeck has changed several times in recent years. These changes have appeared as a consequence of new ways of perceiving the role of research in relation to business. Today, research activities in Lundbeck are geographically distributed over three sites: the main site in Denmark, and two smaller sites in the US and China. Altogether, about 1,200 specialists are employed in Research and Development. Since 2011, Research and Development have been grouped as one area in Lundbeck. Until then, Research and Development were organized as two separate domains, each with their own head. Since this thesis is based on fieldwork in the period 2009-2013, it is relevant to note that between 2009 to 2011, Lundbeck Research included four quite diverse activities: Drug Discovery, including very early identification of unmet needs and definition of research projects; NonClinical Safety Research, covering early tests of toxicity and other safety issues; Business Development, involving systematic search for potential research partners and business opportunities; and finally Patents and Trademarks, including evaluation of patent and license opportunities. My research was primarily located in the area of Drug Discovery in the then department of Molecular Neurobiology, which, by the employees in that area, was perceived as “real research”. Drug Discovery was organized into three main divisions: Medicinal Chemistry, Neurobiology and Pharmacology. As in a matrix organization, research projects cut across these three divisions according to specific diseases referred to as ‘indication areas’. During my research period, these indication areas were Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Psychoses, and Depression and Anxiety. 34 Each of the indications had a strategy, for instance, an Alzheimer’s disease strategy, describing how current research activities aimed at developing a drug for this specific disease. Besides belonging to specific departments such as the Molecular Neurobiology department, employees in the research division were organized in groups according to indication areas. The purpose was to build up expertise within each of the indications. Each indication group had a chair, usually a department manager or section head, responsible for an annually revised strategy plan. In 2010, this organization of research was revised as an outcome of an extensive strategy process, Synapse, to which I return. One consequence of this strategy process was that indications were replaced by biological mechanisms as the main organizing principle, causing a considerable reorganization of research groups and expertise. Where research was previously driven by certainty about the specific indication towards which it was directed, the reorganization was based on the idea that the same biological mechanism might be relevant for several diseases. Accordingly, research into one biological mechanism might lead to innovations within a number of indication areas. This implied uncertainty about indications but the perceived benefit was that it might lead to potential innovations in the longer term. It also implied a strong focus on articulating biological hypotheses. This, too, meant a reversal of the research process, since previously research had typically been initiated based on newly discovered effects in known compounds. Consequently, medicinal chemists had played an important role in pointing out these compounds. In contrast, the reorganization put the focus on ‘disease biology’, privileging biologists and the development of scientific hypothesis based on mechanisms, structures and patterns. As a consequence of the strategy process, the departments in Lundbeck’s research 35 division were renamed as Discovery Chemistry, Neurodegeneration, and Synaptic Transmission. I explore these changes in detail in Chapter 12. The changes to the formal organization of Lundbeck in 2011 were the results of an extensive strategy process, named Synapse, which roughly took place between 2009 and 2011. In the nervous system, ‘a synapse’ is a structure that permits a neuron or nerve cell to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell, thus making a connection or communication. According to a dictionary definition, a synapse is “a junction between two nerve cells, consisting of a minute gap, across which impulses pass by diffusion of a neurotransmitter”. 5 Metaphorically, the concept of the synapse suggests both the idea of a gap and a connection. Lundbeck’s strategy process, Synapse, took inspiration from this idea by aiming at developing new strategies that were based on a sustained effort at making connections. In fact, the Lundbeck management already had several specific connections in mind.6 First, there were connections between Lundbeck and the outside world. In the research division, such connections implied relating actively to an increasingly complex regulatory system and to external research partners. At a general level, these connections also involved creating more societal awareness of brain diseases, an aim that later developed into a systematic effort to address societal agendas as part of Public Affairs. Second, there were connections within Lundbeck; that is, between divisions and activities that had previously been seen as distinct. Specifically, this included the divisions of Research, Development and Clinical Research. By appealing to the 5 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 6 During 2005 to 2007, before Synapse was initiated, a strategy process took in Lundbeck Research only. It was called “Lundbeck 2020” and was based on similar ideas of connecting Lundbeck to an outside world. 36 concept of synapses in the overall vision, the management aimed at integrating these divisions and preventing unfortunate misaligned perspectives when transferring an activity from one division to another. Thus, by incorporating the perspectives of Development and Clinical Research in the prioritization and structure of new research projects, the aim was to avoid the potential situation where a project was rejected as relevant or useful in the transition from Research to Development. In this way, the Synapse strategy process depended on a rather intriguing notion of strategic research, which I explore in more detail in Chapters 12 and 13. Before the organizational changes that followed the Synapse strategy process, three research groups had primarily managed research in Lundbeck. On a weekly basis, the members of these groups discussed a broad range of research related issues, including strategic initiatives related to collaboration with external research groups. The first was the Research Management Board (RMB), headed by the executive vice president of research. This board consisted of each of the heads of the research divisions, including the head of Drug Discovery in Denmark, the head of Drug Discovery in the United States, the head of Non-Clinical Safety Research, the head of Patents and Trademarks, and the head of External Affairs. Secondly, the Drug Discovery Management Team (DDMT) headed by the head of Drug Discovery in Denmark consisted of the three divisional directors, each representing a research area: the Divisional Director of Chemistry, the Divisional Director of Pharmacology, and the Divisional Director of Molecular Neurobiology. Finally, the Research and Development Management Board (RDMB) consisted of the Research Management Board and its equivalent in the Development division. This board had the task of coordinating activities between Research and Development at a general level, which included ensuring the transition of projects 37 from Research to Development, an effort that in the context of the Synapse strategy became a key concern. The names of departments and the constitution of these management groups all bear witness to the great importance of research in Lundbeck. The shift from a focus on diseases to focus on biology also illustrates that a certain kind of research has a particularly high status in Lundbeck. Indeed, naming research units after biological mechanisms such as “synaptic transmission” suggests that it is important that research strategies are reflected in the organizational structure. When I first visited Lundbeck, I immediately noticed the strong emphasis on science. From looking at organizational diagrams, I also observed that the coordination between Research and Development was primarily seen as taking place in a joint coordination group at the level of top management. After Synapse, however, integration came to be seen as an effort that took place at all levels, as representatives of development division and clinical research were included even in the early prioritization and organization of research projects. Again, by looking at the formal structure of Lundbeck, one might also notice an increased focus on certain activities in the years 2009-2013. Especially the areas of Alliance Management and Public Affairs were prioritized, resulting in the appointment of an Alliance Management Director around 2008-2009 and the establishment of a Global Public Affairs department in 2011. Both events illustrate an interest in linking to an external world represented by alliance partners, patients and regulative authorities, and society in general. They also suggest an acknowledgment of the fact that the invention and marketing of new drugs is not only a matter of initiating the right or most excellent research projects but also relied on preparing the ground for new drugs more generally. In Lundbeck, this involved interacting with Danish public research policy, activities 44 There are also some immediate signs of research that you encounter when visiting Lundbeck: the lecture hall in the reception building; the laboratory facilities in several of the research buildings some of which you can actually see from the street through the windows; physical objects like book shelves with journals indicating science; offices with papers and books and signs of activity in organizing and presenting knowledge, pictures of molecules on the walls. Isolating these observations, Lundbeck reminds you of an academic research institution. However, other signs lead your thoughts elsewhere. The large-scale canteen, the food that is served, the coffee machines, the quality of the seats in the lecture hall, the exclusivity of the reception area, the atmosphere at the management floors, and the fact that, except from around lunch time, there is very little physical activity on the Lundbeck site, no students walking to and from lectures. All of this suggests that you are in a company and that whatever research is conducted here has specific purposes, namely producing pharmaceutical drugs. Conclusion As we have seen, Lundbeck potentially offers a rich context for exploring how strategic research and science-industry collaboration develops in a company. Not only is it interesting to explore how research unfolds in the context of a research company, it is also particularly interesting to follow this process in situations, as in Lundbeck, where research strategies are being developed. How are particular research areas selected? How do research managers take the potential future of Lundbeck into account when initiating new research? How do different parts of Lundbeck, some research oriented and some more business oriented, work together in developing new strategies? These are relevant questions to explore in the empirical context of Lundbeck. 45 I now move to discuss how I investigated Lundbeck. This entails discussion of the particular set-up of my PhD and the methodological tools I have used to explore Lundbeck. 46 7. METHODOLOGY This PhD project has occasioned many methodological questions. Some of these questions relates to its set-up as an Industrial PhD, a Danish scheme that I return to. Others relate to how I have chosen to explore strategic research in Lundbeck in a particularly active way. Over a period of five years, I spent on average 2-3 days in Lundbeck a week. This has amounted to many hours and, I hope, a deep insight in the concerns and activities of the research managers in Lundbeck. This involvement also raises a number of questions. How did I investigate strategic research in Lundbeck, using which methods and tools? How did particular research questions and findings develop? What characterized the role of my research in Lundbeck? In this chapter, I discuss these questions. An Industrial PhD set-up My scholarship is an industrial PhD, a particular Danish scheme that requires a short explanation. An industrial PhD is a collaboration between a company, a university and a PhD researcher. The company employs the PhD student who is simultaneously affiliated with a public research institution (in this case, Copenhagen Business School). The PhD project is acquired to have “industrial relevance”7, which in practice can be interpreted in many ways. In my case, industrial relevance was understood as giving relevant input to an on-going process of developing best practices for external research collaboration. The Danish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education and the company cofund the project and the company employs the PhD researcher. The industrial 7 www.fivu.dk. 47 PhD scheme was introduced in 2002 to educate doctoral researchers with a particular industrial focus and to increase interaction between universities and companies.8 Initiating an Industrial PhD project can be done by either a company, a university or by the potential PhD candidate. In the present case, I took the initiative by formulating initial research questions in collaboration with my academic supervisor. These questions concerned the implications for research managers of increased strategic research collaboration with universities. I presented my proposal to the then head of research in Lundbeck and we discussed how it might become interesting to the company. As described in the preface, there was, at that time, a more or less immediate match between my academic interests and the concerns among research managers at Lundbeck. Or at least, at this particular time, the proposed research problem was defined loosely enough to make such a match seem plausible. Fieldwork in Lundbeck Over a period of five years, from November 2008 to November 2013, interrupted by one year’s maternity leave from July 2011 to August 2012, I studied research strategies in Lundbeck. From November 2008 to July 2011, I was actively engaged in fieldwork and I continued to spend time in Lundbeck after my return in August 2012. As a natural consequence of my employment, I was engaged in discussions about research strategies also after my return. Throughout the period, I had an office. From November 2008 to July 2009, my desk was in an open office space with other PhD students. From July 2009 to July 2011, I moved to an office in the hallway that housed the head of research and his staff. In 2011, the head of research became leader of a new area, Global Public Affairs. When I returned in 8 www.fivu.dk. 48 August 2012, I joined this department and moved to an office in the building housing the reception and general management (c.f. the description of different workspaces in Lundbeck in the previous chapter). From external collaboration to strategic research My research focus and methods changed during the project. To begin with, my project was defined as a study of “the implications for research managers of increased external research collaboration”. Approaching this quite openly, I explored what constituted research management in Lundbeck, who were seen as research managers, what external research meant and how collaboration was perceived among research managers. I explored these questions using different methods. First, I used informal conversations with employees in the Research division to get an overview of what kind of concerns and activities was related to external collaboration. This involved talking to scientists, research managers, technicians, students, and secretaries. In addition, I participated in meetings that concerned specific external collaborations and involved, for instance, planning and the making of contracts. In Chapters 10-13, I describe the activities that took place in these meetings, and below I return to how I negotiated access to them. I also conducted formal interviews with the research managers in Lundbeck who were particularly involved in making collaborations and developing strategies. Further, I eventually came to actively stimulate discussion by hosting seminars for project leaders and research managers. Thus I used a variety of methods to investigate what the implications for research managers were of the changing conditions for research. Around midway, the emphasis of my research changed. This was in part a consequence of the initiation of the strategy program, Synapse that ran from 49 2009-2011 and created a new orientation to research. Because I had taken an active part in discussing research strategies among research managers, I was invited to participate in Synapse as a member of a working group. This working group had the task of considering the question of what kind of behavior might promote collaboration between Research and Development activities in Lundbeck. In Chapter 13, I discuss how the working group approached this question. At first, I saw participating in a formal working group as an opportunity to put my investigation of external collaboration into perspective. It gave me an occasion for learning about internal issues, including how employees from other parts of Lundbeck saw the role of research and perceived of external collaborations that were so central to research managers. I was also interested in the in-house implications of the new strategies that I had previously studied and of other new overall strategies. I wondered what characterized collaboration between researchers and their colleagues from other parts of Lundbeck, both in this strategy process and more generally. The purpose of exploring these questions was not to develop a comparative research design that would allow me to identify the similarities and dissimilarities between internal and external collaboration. Rather the purpose was to use this occasion actively as a background for interpreting the implications of external collaborations for Lundbeck more generally. I decided to take this opportunity, knowing that it would open up for a new world of data. However, participating in the behavior-working group in fact became more than background information and slightly changed the overall focus of my research. Managing external research collaboration was clearly related to managing other forms of research and other relations than those purely Lundbeck external. By studying external collaboration, I had mainly focused on the interface between Lundbeck researchers and external collaborators. However, as it turned out, this 50 interface was difficult to isolate from in-house research practices in Lundbeck and from broader issues of managing research. I started to notice that when research managers in Lundbeck talked about external collaboration during Synapse they immediately drew parallels to in-house research, and to the Synapse ambition of connecting preclinical and clinical research, and Research and Development more effectively.9 Thus, rather than study the specific implications for research managers of increased external research, I changed focus to exploring external collaboration in the context of Lundbeck. This meant accounting both for relations between Lundbeck research managers and external collaborators, and for relations between Lundbeck research managers and in-house colleagues. As the Synapse process highlighted, although people from Research and Development were part of the same company, they were not necessarily obviously, not to say optimally, linked. Consequently, upon my return in 2012, I changed the general emphasis of the project from external collaboration to strategic research. Focusing on strategic research had the effect of relating and including several interesting research inquiries. First, I was interested in the relation between research managers in Lundbeck and external collaborators. This also implied an interest for how external collaboration was related to other research activities. Second, I was interested in the relation between the divisions of Research and Development in Lundbeck. Although they were part of the same company, employees in Research and Development clearly saw research in very different ways. Finally, I was interested in the relation between Danish public research policy and strategy making in Lundbeck. For obvious reasons, strategic research implied quite different things in these two contexts. Thus, it was interesting to see how, in 9 I Chapter 12, I describe how Synapse developed a new type of concern for external collaboration. 51 policy, companies’ interests were embedded in the notion of strategic research, whereas research managers in Lundbeck defined relevant and strategic research as, to some extent, more similar to independent research. Hence, defining my object of study as strategic research had the effect of pulling together a number of contexts and interfaces. Based on this account of how my focus and object of study developed in the process of studying it, how might the general approach be characterized? As described, I used a number of methods associated with ethnography. But I was also involved in a very active sense, which requires reflection. I now describe how my methodology changed during the fieldwork. Following the actor To explore external research strategies in Lundbeck I initially used a method that, following Bruno Latour’s early actor network theory, might loosely be referred to as ‘following the actor’ (Latour 1987). This method implies following an object or problem as it travels between the lab and the outside world. As I saw it at that time, I investigated the implications of increased external collaboration in ‘the laboratory of Lundbeck’. Using this method of following implied a quite open approach to what constituted external collaboration in Lundbeck and to where to find it. In principal, although my problem was predefined as studying implications for research managers, I might find that external collaboration was an activity that rather occupied students and technicians. However, my PhD set-up to an extent restrained how open-ended I could be. As the PhD was sponsored by research managers and had, at least to some extent, to fit their concerns about strategies, making a lab study among students and technicians did not seem an obvious thing to do. Thus, rather than follow external collaboration into the labs 52 of Lundbeck I primarily followed it into a ‘managerial lab’. This entailed following management discussions of new collaboration, strategies, and visions. However, although the method of following the actor provided me with a usefully open-ended approach to what might constitute external collaboration, it also turned out to be difficult to use in my case. In the end, it did not very precisely characterize what I did. I was following to be sure, but I was also participating, hosting, leading, making drafts and outlines, participating in teamwork in workgroups and actively interfering in discussions. On the one hand, this was due to the research managers’ expectations. They asked for my opinion in particular cases, for example querying how I saw external collaboration based on my experience with public policy and requesting that I drafted recommendations for how to govern external collaboration. There was a manifest difference in following what research managers did and making recommendations for what they should do. I did not have much of a problem with making presentations and recommendations. Based on my former experience and my growing familiarity with Lundbeck’s management this was relatively easy. The problem was rather the methodological questions raised by this engagement. What was the nature of what I studied when I was involved to such an extent? Would I be able to distance myself from it to the extent that following suggested was necessary? Based on this, I continue to discuss my approach in relation to the method of participant observation. Participant observation As mentioned, the notion of following the actor was slightly problematic, since it suggested something more open and passive than what I actually did. To emphasize my role as a participant I started to characterize my main method as 53 participant observation. Participant observation is a qualitative research tool and the main ethnographic approach used in a number of social science fields such as, for instance, social anthropology. Using this method, the researcher aims at getting a close familiarity with a practice or culture over an extended period of time (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983; Ybema et al. 2009; Neyland 2008). In many respects, describing my engagement as participant observation makes sense. Even so, this characterization also does not fully capture what I did. After all, I was not only participating in order to be able to observe action, I was also stimulating action. Consequently, if it this was indeed participant observation the strong emphasis was on participation. So how might I describe my approach? How did specific inquiries develop in the process of studying Lundbeck? What guided my selection of empirical material? In the following, I discuss three concepts that became important for my answers to these questions. Ethno-epistemic assemblages First, I drew on Alan Irwin and Mike Michael’s notion of ‘ethno-epistemic assemblages’ to reflect on my methodology (Irwin and Michael 2003). The term requires some explanation. ‘Ethno’ refers to local and situated knowledge. ‘Epistemic’ highlights the nature of knowledge as truth claims about the world. Finally, ‘assemblage’ describes how diverse forms of local knowledge that are sort of pulled together constitute a phenomenon. Irwin and Michael introduce the notion as a pragmatic, empirical research tool. For them, studying something as an ethno-epistemic assemblage implies a focus on the empirical constitution of a phenomenon. In contrast, I have found this term useful for reflecting on methodological questions. Especially, I have found the term helpful in order to explain how my object of study developed in the process of studying it. 60 project leader-working group became a platform for subsequently participating as a member of a formal Synapse working group concerned with collaborative behavior of leaders. In this process, my research focus developed in a negotiation process in which external collaboration became increasingly linked with project leadership. For now I simply highlight that making my research project a doable problem in the context of Lundbeck involved articulation work that was particular intense in relation to meeting participation. Negotiating access to meetings required far more articulation work than making interviews. In these negotiations, it became clear that it was possible to see the purpose of my research in different ways. Articulation work and the nature of my research I also engaged in intense articulation work in relation to the role or impact of my research. In particular, there were two ways in which the role of my research was negotiated. As noted, I started out with the intention of simply exploring, describing, and analyzing how external collaboration developed in Lundbeck. However, at several occasions I was also asked to give specific recommendations. I illustrate this with a quick example and return to a more elaborate discussion of my role in Chapter 13. In May 2009, I hosted a seminar for the Research Management Board (RMB) on external collaboration. It was called “Future Models of Collaboration”. Hosting this seminar involved stimulating discussion about the challenges of external collaboration. In this seminar, individual members of the RMB gave presentations about the challenges they saw, specifically in relation to the governance of external collaboration. After the seminar, the head of research invited me to make a white paper that outlined best practices for external collaboration in Lundbeck. Making this white paper involved integrating a number of things such as the RMB members’ observations and discussions, my 61 observations from the seminar, my own ideas based on my research and my former experiences with governance and management of research from public policy, and transforming all this into recommendations. However, although the head of research had an interest in presenting this white paper as an outcome of my research, I wanted to play down my role because the white paper also contained a mixture of the RMB members’ experiences that were not exactly a result of my research. However, downplaying my role was not uncomplicated. In the process, it became obvious that presenting this white paper as a result of my research had the important function of legitimizing my role as a researcher in Lundbeck. My research was seen as leading to different things, some of which were early operational recommendations. This was but one of several situations in which I produced lists of recommendations or described models that were seen as part of my research results. As I saw it, these were indeed results of my research; however, they were not the end results, but rather necessary intermediary points that would enable me to retain the doability of the project. Towards the end of my PhD, I experienced a different form of articulation work about the outcomes of my research. This articulation work was related to the event of making a joint paper with my academic supervisor, Alan Irwin, and Peter Høngaard Andersen, a Lundbeck research manager (see appendix A). The paper was published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a journal that is widely read among research managers in Lundbeck. In Lundbeck, the comment was received well. Within the first week after its publication, several research managers contacted me with congratulations. When I asked them what they thought about the comment, several of them said, “it describes very well how we work”. This was of course a positive response; however, I was curious about this idea about description and how more precisely they viewed the specific impact of my research. I discussed this question in detail with one senior research manager. As 62 I had expected, he argued that it was difficult to pinpoint the exact impact of my research. This led to an interesting discussion of whether I had, in fact, merely described how they worked in Lundbeck and thus had acquired an industrial perspective. Or whether I had in fact helped to shape or change particular strategic discussions. Without being able to answer this question unequivocally, it is noteworthy that in some situations making my research doable required making it very operational and instructional, while at other times it was doable because it was merely descriptive and not in fact changing anything.10 This topic also feeds into the potential role STS research, to which I return in conclusion. The notion of constructing doable problems opens up important questions concerning the articulation work it takes to define and develop a research projects and research agendas. At times, it has indeed made more sense to understand my research in terms of research collaboration rather than a researcher/informant relationship. The content of my project has developed according to the present conditions and while I have been quite an active researcher, so too have research managers in Lundbeck also actively given input to my research and indeed to my role as a researcher. I end this chapter by introducing a third notion, ‘disconcertment’ that I have used as a data-selecting tool. This notion helps me to explain my way of focusing in the many meetings and discussions that make up my data material. Disconcertment The notion of ‘disconcertment’ relates to classic methodological problems of encountering and analyzing the field. In STS, Helen Verran has developed 10 None of the research managers argued that my research had no impact but it was rather difficult, also for me, to pinpoint what exactly it had changed and produced. 63 disconcertment (Verran 1999; 2001) and recently others have taken it up. Thus, in “Cultivating Disconcertment”, John Law and Wen-yuan Lin argue that disconcertment is a valuable methodological tool for exploring the intersections of different knowledge forms (Law and Lin 2011). According to dictionary definition, to disconcert means, “to upset the progress of”.11 It comes from desconcerter, which means des- (expressing reversal) + concerter “bring together”, hence the connotations of disharmony or deconstruction. Verran discusses the notion of disconcertment in relation to fieldwork in Africa, where she studied diverse ways of teaching mathematics. During fieldwork, she observed teaching based on completely different conceptions of number, which disconcerted her Western, mathematical understanding. According to Verran, disconcertment marks moments of “double seeing”, such as seeing the “normal” notion of length, presented and performed in a strange way in an African math class (Verran 2001: 5). Thus disconcerting “double seeing” occurs in consequence of a comparative moment, where one experiences both sameness and difference. Verran argues that such odd moments can be deployed strategically. “This disconcertment, source of both clear delight and confused misery, must be privileged and nurtured, valued and expanded upon.” (Verran 2001: 5). Even if one’s first intuition is to try to “explain” (away) these moments by searching for a sense of underlying coherence, Verran encourages sustained exploration of just what makes them disturbing. “It is easy to ignore and pass by these moments— part of the problem is their fleeting subtlety—yet it is possible to become acutely sensitized to them” (ibid.). Using a terminology, which I develop further on in this thesis, I propose that disconcertment is produced where different forms of 11 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 64 screening collide, which will make much more sense when I introduce the notion of screens in Chapter 9. Verran presents disconcertment as a tool that can be used by analysts to study somewhat awkward or embarrassing situations. As she argues, disconcertment is something that the analyst can gradually become sensitive to and become able to use analytically. Thus, Verran encourages the analyst to develop a sensitivity to one’s own discomfort, using “bodily disconcertment” as an expression of what might be called metaphysical disjuncture (Law and Lin 2011: 137). That disconcertment is located in the body obviously troubles any easy aspiration to deploy it strategically or rationally. Its usefulness depends on articulating experiences that are per definition unforeseeable, caused by particular encounters in the field. But even so one might also think that different research conditions might create more or less optimal circumstances for both perceiving and experiencing disconcertment. Since disconcertment is produced not only by great differences but also by subtle dissimilarities of presumptions and expectations, we can also assume that it requires quite close relations with the people and things one wants to investigate. In the following analyses, however, I attend to disconcertment in a somewhat different way than Verran recommends. Rather than only using my own disconcertment, I am also interested in public moments of disconcertment, sensed both by the analyst and people in the field. One might see this emphasis as focused on a collective, even epistemic form of disconcertment in which a group of people has a shared experience that something is out of order. Verran argues that a disconcerted laughter should be taken seriously as an indicator of tensions brought to light by particular situations, and she refers to her own “visceral laughter” (Verran 1999; 2001: 5). But one might also observe situations of collective laughter. Moments of awkward laughter, I suggest, offer an entry point 65 for understanding the collective sense of what is normal and straightforward in a situation, since it indicates a disruption of the normal. A focus on collective disconcertment also assumes that the analyst is not entirely or alone responsible for creating or registering these moments but that they might be present in situations where the unusual appears and is dealt with by a group. It is in this sense that I use disconcertment as a methodological selecting and organizing device. The empirical situations that I discuss in the Chapters 10-13 all have in common that they elicit moments of disjuncture: at various times, managing external collaboration, collaborating with in-house colleagues, and defining new strategies presented generated such moments of disconcertment. Whereas STS analyses often focus on the mundane and normal (Woolgar and Neyland 2013), I suggest that focusing on instances of misalignment is also a way of opening up for an understanding of what constitutes the normal. Conclusion In this chapter, I have described the methods and tools that I used to explore strategic research in Lundbeck. The Industrial PhD set-up has given me an opportunity to get close to the thesis’ matters of concern. To further take advantage of this opportunity, I have deployed an open-ended approach with a strong emphasis on participation. Rather than primarily observing, I have taken active part in discussions at Lundbeck. As a consequence of deploying such an approach, my object of study changed in the process from external collaboration in the research division of Lundbeck to strategic research in Lundbeck at large. I think of this object of study as an ethno-epistemic assemblage. By defining this assemblage broadly as strategic research I have been able to pull together a number of diverse practices of strategic research. Consequently, I have not only 66 looked at contrasts between Danish public research policy and research practices in Lundbeck, but also explored contrasting research practices in Lundbeck related to collaboration with external academic research groups and in-house colleagues. Rather than implement a predefined research agenda, my main methodology is inspired by the idea of constructing a doable problem. I have participated in a research collaboration that developed pragmatically according to what was interesting and doable for diverse collaborators. Perhaps this sounds easy enough, but it involved significant articulation work related both to access and to the role of my research as simultaneously highly instructive and merely descriptive. I suggest further that part of what made the project doable was my willingness to let it adapt to such different outcomes and purposes. Finally, I use the notion of disconcertment as a selecting and organizing device. Because of the nature of my fieldwork, I not only use my own disconcertment but also draw on public and shared experiences of disconcertment. I want to take forms of disconcertment seriously as valuable sources for developing new understandings of strategic research. I now take a step back to explore how strategic research and ideas about scienceindustry collaboration have developed in the context of Danish research policy. The purpose of this is to provide an understanding of the Danish national discussions of strategic research that both relate to concerns in Lundbeck and suggest quite different categorizations of research than what we have seen in Lundbeck. So how is strategic research defined and organized in Danish research policy? 67 8. STRATEGIC RESEARCH IN DENMARK In Danish public research policy, ‘strategic research’ has a taken on a particular meaning. Not only is it seen as a particular form of research that can be distinguished from basic, independent research. Presently, strategic research also has a separate organization with its own councils, program committees and secretariats. So what characterizes strategic research in a Danish research policy context? Which practices and considerations are related to the current organization of strategic research as separate from basic, independent research? What is the background for this particular Danish construction in which strategic research has developed as a distinct domain? These are the questions explored in this chapter. Its aim is to clarify how I see the relation between the Danish national context of research policy and Lundbeck, a global pharmaceutical company. From one perspective, Danish research policy and Lundbeck inhabit two separate worlds. Managing research is obviously a quite different task depending on whether it takes place in public institutions or in a private company. Emphasizing the different worlds of Danish research policy and Lundbeck is useful because it immediately requires that we make explicit what is particular about each of these worlds. Being able to shift back and forth between Danish research policy and Lundbeck is analytically helpful in terms of pinpointing particular traits and differences. Even so, my main emphasis is on the research management practices of Lundbeck. Thus, the world of Danish public policy serves as an important background for this exploration. Yet, the key notion of strategic research comes from public policy. It is not a widely used term in Lundbeck where managers rather talk about “research strategies” or specific “strategic research areas”. The 68 structure of the thesis reflects this difference as policy is mainly described in this chapter and separated from discussions of Lundbeck practices introduced before this chapter and in the following empirical analyses. Even so, as mentioned, I also see Danish public policy and Lundbeck as part of the same field, or ethno-epistemic assemblage (Irwin and Michael 2003). In Danish public research policy, we find very specific ideas about companies and what they want from the public sector, for example in terms of educated candidates and relevant research. In Lundbeck, too, we find research managers that are deeply engaged in public research policy. For instance, in Lundbeck I noticed that two members of the Research Management Board (RMB) were in fact also members of specific councils and thus also dealt with public policies in a quite direct sense. Not least, I see Danish research policy and Lundbeck as connected in relation to one particular idea. This is the key idea that university-industry collaboration is a key tool for creating innovation and growth. In public policy, university-industry collaboration has been introduced as a main driver of national economic growth and as a tool for addressing particular societal or industrial problems. Research managers in Lundbeck agree that university-industry collaboration is an important part of research strategies but emphasize a different main purpose of research collaboration. They propose that academic collaboration is important for developing new platforms for innovation with long-term effects. Building platforms is quite different from solving problems. In this way, a shared interest in strategic use of university-industry collaboration paves the way for a potentially intriguing difference in how the main purpose of these collaborations is imagined. These similarities and differences are central to the exploration of this thesis. To elucidate the current Danish research policy situation, I draw on official documents, law materials and background discussions that illustrate the current 69 Danish construction. In particular, I focus on the law of 2004 that established the Danish Council for Strategic Research (DSF) and on a set of comments to the 2004 law that describes the purpose of particular elements in the law. I also draw on website material from the councils and foundations that govern strategic research in Denmark. This material shows how strategic research is administered and which elements of strategic research are given special attentions. In addition, I draw on public debates about strategic research in media and at conferences. Finally, I draw on my knowledge as a former employee at the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF) established in 2005-2006 as part of a new organization of public research funds that gave strategic research a particular importance. As noted in the introduction, the DNATF was established to rethink and renew existing ways of managing publicly funded research. Being part of this process implied constant articulation of the differences between managing public research in the context of the DNATF and existing practices of administering research developed in the context of the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (DASTI). Drawing on this material, I explore the current organization of Danish public research funding. This organization is currently changing in important ways as the Danish political parties have just (this autumn 2013) agreed on a new reform of strategic research in Denmark. Although apparently radical, however, the new reform is based on some of the same principles that have characterized the Danish research advisory and funding system since 2004. Thus, it remains relevant to explore the emergence of the idea of introducing strategic research as a separate field in Danish research policy. I do so by analyzing the basic models of research that have characterized Danish research policy making in recent years. Finally, I explore how managing strategic research became a concern in Danish research policy. How, then, do current policy ideas about research management 76 reflected in the way councils and foundations covering strategic research in Denmark have defined their selection criteria. One of the criteria for selection suggested by the DNATF is defined as “research and innovation of high international standard”,16 suggesting that strategic problem solving requires high quality research. In a similar manner, and even more explicitly, the DSF has introduced a new concept in Danish research policy, which they call ‘strategic quality’ (DSF 2013). According to the DSF, strategic quality is composed by “the relevance of the research”, “the potential effect of the research” and “the research standard” (ibid. 3ff.). In this definition, as in the DNATF’s definition of related criteria, quality is folded into the idea of strategic research as a component at the same level as societal and industrial relevance. Concepts such as strategic quality illustrate what we might think of as the fundamental ambiguity of the concept of strategic research. On the one hand, the organization of Danish public research is based on a clear separation of strategic and basic research, and of relevant and excellent research. Public discourses, events and debates often refer to this separation as a natural given.17 On the other hand, in recent years, we have initiatives and new definitions such as strategic quality that clearly questions the separation of strategic and essential qualities of science. These tensions inherent in the notion of strategic research raise a number of questions of key importance for this thesis. Can strategic research not be excellent? And can excellent research not be strategic? Further, what is the role of companies in such research? A recent report published by the European Science Foundation, “Science in society: caring for our futures in turbulent times” addresses this matter directly and argues for “linking excellence to relevance and responsibility” (Felt et al. 2013: 4). However, although there are these initiatives 16 www.hoejteknologifonden.dk. 17 See Vedel and Gad 2011. 77 that somewhat soften the terminology and link domains otherwise assumed to be distinct in new ways, it is characteristic of the Danish situation that excellence and relevance are generally seen as separated and descriptive of different research practices. Linear models of research In Danish research policy, strategic research is often presented using a linear model. An example of such a linear model was recently used in the recent Danish Innovation Strategy of December 2012 to explain the reorganization of the Danish research system. See diagram below that I also showed in the introduction. Illustration 4: The linear organization of the Danish public research advisory and funding system (Regeringen 2012) What does this model illustrate? The model shows a spectrum of research types ranging from basic research on the left to market maturation on the right. The model then suggests that the market, exemplified by “consumers, companies, the 78 public sector and other nations”, represents a demand and that “knowledge institutions and companies” supply knowledge to meet this demand. It proposes a dynamic that is constituted by a science and technology push and a market pull, illustrated by the red arrows. In the model, the main public councils and foundations are located from left to right. On the far left is the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) that funds centers of excellence. Here, we also find the Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF) that operates in the same field. The three councils and foundations that support strategic research follow: the Danish Council for Strategic Research (DSF), the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF) and the Danish Council for Technology and Innovation (RTI). At the far right closest to the market we find the Growth Foundation, a state investment fund18. Although the model differentiates between different forms of research using a scale from basic research to market it also illustrates potential overlaps between adjacent research councils and foundations. However, because the model is linear it does not facilitate discussion of overlaps or shared practices between forms of research that are situated far from each other on the scale. Certainly, the policy notion of quality potentially cuts across the basic categories of the model. But, as I will explore in this thesis, there are also other important research practices to which such linear policy models render us blind. For instance, in this model basic research is placed far from the market, suggesting both that basic research and markets are different worlds and that basic research has to transform or mature into something else in order to become market relevant. However, the specific constitution of both markets and basic research varies, and therefore it is obvious that this model only describes one type of relationship whereas we might think of others. 18 Vækstfonden. 79 Although the linear model of research has been important in the Danish research policy context, its limitations have also been debated. Whereas the model has been useful for overall policy discussions of the prioritization of public funds, it usefulness as a tool for categorizing individual research projects has been considerably more ambiguous. Here, I draw on my experience from working in the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF), since talk of these ambiguities have rarely been part of the Danish public debate. As noted, the linear model facilitates broad differentiations between basic and strategic research without accounting for subtle differences or exceptions to the rule. However, this inability to account for subtleties becomes a problem within the individual councils where the boundaries between different research practices are often recognized to be much more blurry. As the DNATF was established in 2006, we often discussed the basic characteristics of a project funded by us in comparison with projects funded by other councils and foundations. In the selection process, how could we identify a suitable project that obviously lived up to our funding criteria? While looking for such distinctive characteristics, we worked from the experience that projects funded by DNATF were quite diverse and distributed across different industries and research areas. They had different risk profiles. The possibility of succeeding seemed good for some projects and less good for others. In order to evaluate the developing funding profile of DNATF, we started to categorize projects that had received funding. However, categorizing individual projects was not easy. For instance, most of the time, evaluating whether a certain research activity exemplified basic research and high risk was impossible, even for the participants in the project. Consequently, identifying a clear profile within the area of strategic research proved to be highly challenging in practice. Indeed, it seemed that DNATF projects were primarily characterized by drawing on quite different forms 80 of research practices. Thus, even though the linear research policy model made sense as a tool for differentiating the mandates of public councils and foundation it was relatively useless as a tool for categorizing research proposals, not to mention describing the growing portfolio of projects that had received grants from DNATF. As I have shown, the Danish policy notions of strategic and independent research draw on a linear model of research. Now, simultaneously with the emergence of strategic research institutions in Danish research policy another model gained influence, which spoke to the question of how to conceive strategic research. This was Donald Stokes’ model of Pasteur’s quadrant (Stokes 1997). In contrast to the linear model, Stokes’ model suggested a potential alignment of research ambitions that was usually seen as apart. Let us therefore consider the basic idea of this model and how it affected the Danish policy construction of strategic research. Strategic research as Pasteur’s quadrant Donald Stokes originally proposed the model of Pasteur’s quadrant to challenge Vannevar Bush’s distinction between basic research and applied research, suggested in his book Science: The Endless Frontier (Stokes 1997; Bush 1945). Instead of existing in separate categories, Stokes suggests that research develops from the interplay between different motivations. He identifies two main ambitions for research, which are ‘a drive towards fundamental understanding’ and ‘a drive towards applied use’ (Stokes 1997). By focusing on drives rather than stable domains, Stokes emphasizes the dynamic of different research forms. He goes on to propose that understanding the interplay between the different motivating forces of research has important implications for research policy and 81 the organization of research funding. Rather than think only in basic or applied science policy should consider other mixed forms. In Denmark, Stokes’ model has not been used in official strategies although it has often been used in public discussions of policy. Illustration 5: Donald Stokes’ model of Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes 1997). In Stokes’ model, the y-axis represents an increasing drive towards fundamental understanding and the x-axis an increasing drive towards applied use. In the lower quadrant on the left side, according to Stokes, one finds the knowledge of “common man”.19 On the lower right, we find research in which the drive towards applied use is significant. Edison’s light bulb offers an example. At the top left, Bohr’s quadrant covers research with a drive towards fundamental understanding. Finally, at the top right, Pasteur’s quadrant combines a drive towards fundamental understanding with considerations of use. Based on this 19 STS approaches this very differently. See Irwin 1995 and Irwin and Wynne 1996. 82 model, Stokes argued that some research is capable of integrating more than one drive or direction. In discussions of Danish research policy, Pasteur’s quadrant model has been used to challenge a linear model of research. In particular, the quadrant enables policy makers to go beyond the limited notion that areas of research are always clearly delineated and either applied or basic. Thus, the main attraction of this model is its potential for creating a new form of policy conceptualization in which it is possible for basic research and commercialization to meet and overlap. In a Danish context, the model has allowed councils and foundations to argue that strategic research is not a narrow field but one that expands in many directions. In the DNATF, in particular, the model was also used in a number of ways. The secretariat used it to stimulate discussion in the board about the main field and scope of the foundation. Eventually it was agreed that a majority of the foundation’s funded research should fall within Pasteur’s quadrant. Further, it was used in the secretariat as a tool for categorizing research projects. Here, it influenced discussion of incoming applications, for instance by using Pasteur’s quadrant as a yardstick with which to measure their strategic qualities. In addition, it was used for public communication about the purpose of the foundation, which was described as a connecting high quality research with perspectives of commercialization. Finally, the model was used to think about the challenges of strategic research for research managers. As noted, the model focused on bringing together potentially different motivations for research. Although Pasteur’s quadrant was seen as a distinct research form, the construction of the model made it clear that it was composed by different drives. In the context of DNATF, the specific challenges for research managers were consequently seen as related to bringing together and managing these drives. The model was thus used as a tool for discussing research management. This leads me 83 to ask: how has research management developed as a particular concern, closely related to the overall ambition of strategic research? The role of research management in Danish policy Around 2005, with the new organization of the Danish research advisory and funding system, the role of research managers began to emerge as an important question in Danish research policy. Since then it has had a prominent role in Danish research policy. Several examples can be used to illustrate this trend. In 2011, the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences (ATV) initiated a project called ‘The Value Creating University’. 20 This project aimed to stimulate a debate about the role of universities in Danish society. One of the main themes was research management. Although the debate illustrated a wide spectrum of ideas about ideal university research management, there seemed to be a general agreement about the value of an increased focus on research management. In the debate, some argued that good research management should always be based on advanced technical skills, implying that ideal research managers are scientists that have advanced to become leaders. Others argued that research managers should rather be professional managers with specific training in leadership as scientists often make bad leaders (ATV 2012: 37), which I return to below.21 Similarly, in the autumn of 2012, research management was a key topic at yearly networking event of the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF).22 Here, the Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education presented the Pasteur Award, given annually to a project leader that had excelled in ‘bridge building’ between universities and companies in a 20 www.atv.dk. 21 Amanda Goodall: “Expert Knowledge and university leadership” at www.atv.dk. 22 www.hoejteknologifonden.dk/netvaerksdag. 84 research project funded by DNATF. As a third example, consider that the Danish Council for Strategic Research (DSF) gives special attention to research management in its 2013 strategy document. In this document, we read that “strategic research activities are to be performed with due emphasis on skilled research management” (DSF 2013: 10). In this way, research management has indeed become a criterion for receiving research funds. Thus, research management ideas crop up in public seminars, conferences, in relation to discussion of the future of universities and as a basic requirement for receiving funds. Talk of research management reflects diverse ideas about research and vice versa; ideas about the dynamics of research management also illustrate what is seen as constituting research practices. We might then ask what is it about the nature of strategic research in particular that makes research management appear so crucial for successful outcomes. As noted, the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation (DNATF) and the Danish Council for Strategic Research (DSF) have included specific demands for research management in their criteria for selecting and funding research projects. Similarly, as noted above, in 2008 DNATF established an award for exemplary research project leadership.23 In both contexts, the specific nature of strategic research as connecting several aims and perspectives (Stokes 1997) has been used to explain an increased need for research management. The DNATF has specifically attempted to specify the kinds of problems that good research management is meant to solve. According to a DNATF project guide, companies and universities bring different values and norms to a project. In order for successful collaboration to take place, these norms and values do not need to 23 www.hoejteknologifonden.dk (opslag). 85 merge but an initial alignment of expectations is required.24 This alignment is important because otherwise the different interests and goals of the participants will start to diverge and eventually create chaos. The task of the project leader is thus to ensure a continuous alignment of expectations and to prevent chaotic divergence. According to DNATF, it is thus the inherently diverging nature of strategic research that makes research management crucial and thus the main accomplishment of the project leader is to set a joint direction. Here, project managers are not seen as administrative managers but rather as leaders that are capable of connecting different perspectives. In Chapter 13, I return to a discussion of how this is seen in Lundbeck. As mentioned, there is an interesting tension in the idea of research management that recent policy initiatives such as awards and renewed selection criteria give attention to. On the one hand, such initiatives advance the idea of a scientific research manager who has a background in research. In Denmark, institutions such as the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences (ATV) highlight this idea of the technically skilled research manager. Also key contributors to debates on Danish research policy have advanced this idea of a science-manager based on their backgrounds in science and corporate research management.25 According to these proponents of scientific research management, the ideal manager is a scientist with deep insight into the scientific content of the project. On the other hand, others cultivate just the opposite idea, namely, that ideal research management requires professional leadership. This form of research management has been promoted in Denmark with the institution of professional university management. Where university management used to be constituted by university 24 See www.hoejteknologifonden.dk. 25 Examples of contributors are Professor and Chairman Flemming Besenbacher from The Carlsberg Foundation and Jens Rostrup-Nielsen, former senior research manager at Haldor Topsøe. 92 difference, especially an undesirable one, between two views or situations”.29 In comparison, a bridge is “a structure carrying a road, path, railroad, or canal across a river, ravine, road, railroad, or other obstacle”.30 Set side by side, the idea of ‘bridging a gap’ suggests that the domains of university and industry are disconnected and that it is the disconnection that is undesirable. Accordingly, a bridge is constructed to allow traffic from one side of the bridge to the other. But the bridge is a construction and does not become an integrated part of either of the two domains. In contrast, a barrier is, again by dictionary definition, “a fence or other obstacle that prevents movement or access”.31 Here we do not have an unfilled space between two objects but rather a situation of adjacent objects separated by something like a wall that can be removed to allow interaction. Although the metaphors of bridges and barriers are not proposed as coherent theories or models, they significantly influence the kind of research questions that are pursued in the literature on university-industry interaction. In particular, many research policy studies develop questions based on a framework of separated domains, which lead them to address the misalignment or disconnection between these domains by investigating factors and mechanisms that make interaction smooth and effective. If barriers and gaps were not taken for granted, research questions would have to be posed differently. If the starting point were not separate domains research question would not automatically address activities that connect and align. Rather they would have to ask more broadly, who or what interacts and in what ways? 29 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 30 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 31 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 93 Finding the right partners and means of interaction Yet another prevalent way of presenting university-industry interaction is related to identifying an ideal match of universities and companies, or some optimal means of interaction. For instance, in “Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university-industry relations” (Freitas et al. 2013) Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas et al. investigate different ways of approaching university-industry interaction, which they refer to as distinct “governance modes” (ibid. 51). The authors focus particularly on the effectiveness of different ways of governing university-industry relations. They suggest that there are two general modes of governance. First, an “institutional mode of governance” in which interaction is mediated by the administrative structures at the university such as technology transfer offices. Second, a “personal contractual mode of governance” in which interaction involves formal and binding contractual agreements between companies and academics researchers without the direct involvement of a university. The authors argue that, often, the personal contractual mode is overlooked in the literature on university-industry interaction, resulting in a too strong focus on the role of technology transfer offices. They advocate more detailed investigation of other governance forms, and they argue that the right choice of governance model depends on a number of factors, including, the size of a company and its tendency to adapt to “an open approach to technology and innovation development” (ibid. 60). Accordingly, they find that “personal modes” are more effective than “institutional modes” for making the best arrangements with external research partners (ibid.). As the title “Finding the right partners,” indicates, the authors also believe that there is such a thing as ‘a right partner’ that can be identified in advance of collaboration. Successfully identifying this partner is primarily a matter of choosing the correct 94 governance model and acknowledging that personal relationships are sometimes more effective than institutional governance. Other studies are more concerned with finding the best means of interaction, often referred to as channels. As an example of this type of study, consider Claudia De Fuentes et al. “Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit” (Fuentes and Dutrénit 2012). According to theses authors, universityindustry connections can be conceptualized as a three-stage process relating to “drivers of interaction”, “channels of interaction” and “perceived benefits of collaboration”. They proposes a process where successful interaction initially depends on the collaborators’ motivation to collaboration, subsequently on how their interaction is mediated, and finally on how they benefit from collaborating (ibid. 1669). These authors further argue that there is a particular pattern between initial motivation, interaction channels and benefits: “different drivers to collaborate determine specific types of knowledge flows through certain channels, and these channels also have an impact on the specific benefits that agents perceive from interaction” (ibid.). Accordingly, the authors define best channels as the means that give companies long-term benefits of interacting with public research institutions. Interpreted this way, they argue that there are generally speaking three kinds of best channels: joint or contract R&D, intellectual property rights (IPR), and human resources. Rather than interpreting channels in a narrow sense as means of communication, the authors consider the overall definition of joint projects, IPR and the engagement of people with different backgrounds as the most promising ways of ensuring long-term results. As in previous examples, we find an interesting relation between the research questions in this study and the findings. While the title “Best channels of academic-industry interaction for longterm benefit” produces the expectation of being presented with very specific and 95 concrete mechanisms, the authors find that the best channels are in fact composed by a number of things. These include defining a joint project, developing intellectual property rights and experience, which are activities that together seem to cover practically all forms of interaction rather than point to one optimal channel. Studying the governance models that lead to finding optimal collaboration partners and exploring the best channels of interaction for long-term results illustrate a similar concern for optimizing strategies and forms of organizing university-industry interaction. This concern entails an interesting embedded assumption about collaboration. The purpose, drivers and expected outcome of collaboration are assumed, at least to some extent, to be known in advance of its initiation. From this follows the idea that optimizing is possible according to a predefined (stable) purpose and expected outcome. As a consequence, we also find a strong focus on the organization of university-industry interaction that in various ways support the interaction. Shahid Yusuf’s study “Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses” (Yusuf 2008) illustrates this concern for supporting organizations. Yusuf argues that “achieving effective knowledge exchange requires the midwifery of different kinds of intermediaries often working in concert” (ibid. 1167) and he identifies four types of intermediaries: “the general purpose intermediary”, which is the research institution, “the specialized intermediary” exemplified by the university technology licensing office (TLO), “the financial intermediary” for instance, a venture capitalist and, finally, “the institutional intermediary” often a public agency (ibid. 1170). Using this typology, the author argues that the different intermediating parties play different, sometimes overlapping, roles, but together they aim to make the knowledge exchange smooth and effective. One might notice the distinction in studies such as this between the main parties involved in 96 collaboration, referred to in general terms as universities and businesses, and parties that act to merely support the main interaction. To talk about intermediary organizations as separate from the main parties requires certain assumptions about research activities as being quite separate from administrative and funding activates. This involves an implicit categorization of research, to which I will now attend. Pasteur scientists and Mode 2 activities According to research policy studies university-industry interactions thus come in multiple different forms. Such studies thus generally offer various ways of categorizing these forms and types. For an example, consider the article “How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “Pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field” (Baba et al. 2009). Here, Yasunori Baba et al. draw on Donald Stokes’ categorization of research with different drives (see Chapter 8). Drawing on Stokes’ model of Pasteur’s quadrants, Baba et al. define two different researcher types, arguing that “Pasteur scientists” are people “who never lose sight of the desire to advance scientific understanding, but whose research has potential real-world utility” (ibid. 757). In comparison, they define “star scientists” as “scientists who conduct pure basic research, oriented to the scientific discovery, having little interest in the potential uses of the research findings for the real world (such as Niels Bohr)” (ibid.). Based on this classification, the authors explore the roles that researchers with different experiences typically play in collaborations and they examine how researchers’ experiences affect the innovative performance of the companies they collaborate with. They conclude that ““Pasteur scientists” increase firms’ R&D productivity, measured as number of registered patents”, whereas “star 97 scientists” exert little effect on their [companies’] innovative output” (ibid. 756). The endeavor to distinguish between different types of researchers rather than different research practices has some particular effects. In particular, we can observe a shift from considering orientations at an overall level to characterizing the behavior of individuals with the purpose of evaluating their effect on industrial innovation. This focus requires the stabilization of a number of factors related to both research collaboration and industrial innovation. For example, it requires stabilizing the type of researcher and the impact that one researcher has on an innovation process. In the particular case of Baba et al., it also requires the assumption that patents can be seen isolated as illustrations of innovation. Using Stokes’ model to discuss different research activities rather than researcher types, however, suggests that the same researcher might in fact be involved in various practices, which would not lead to a uniform set of researcher behaviors. For another example of the endeavor to classify researcher types, we can consult Carole Estabrooks et al.’s “Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode l and Mode ll activity among health researchers” (Estabrooks et al. 2008). This paper draws on the conceptual framework of Mode 2 research, introduced by Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny et al., in order to characterize the activities of individual researchers. I return to a more detailed discussion of the Mode 2 framework below. Here I note that the authors put particular emphasis on characterizing the individual researcher by distinguishing between “applied researchers” and “basic researchers”, which they render equivalent to Mode 2 and Mode 1 knowledge production (Estabrooks et al. 2008: 1066). Using this terminology, the authors compare the general characteristics of health researchers with the specific “knowledge translation activities” of these researchers. They propose, for instance, that ‘applied researchers’ who engage in more ‘Mode 2 activities’ also report more impact of their work and “higher 98 relational capital” than basic researchers (ibid.). The authors then use these findings to discuss potential tensions between Mode 1 and Mode 2 activities, proposing that Mode 2 might take place at the cost of promotion, tenure, grants and awards. Other analyses are premised not on the introduction of novel schemes of classification but on more traditional categories. Thus, Markus Perkmann et al.’s “Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry” (Perkmann et al. 2011) offers the notion of ‘excellence’ as significant of classic university research and proceeds to explore how excellent research engages with industry. Accordingly, the emphasis is on how the quality of university research shapes engagements with industry. They ask, for instance, whether it is always the case that there is a positive relationship between the research quality produced by individual academics and the subsequent commercialization of that research. They also insist that the relationship between research quality and commercial activity varies from discipline to discipline: in technology oriented disciplines such as the medical and biological sciences faculty, quality is positively related to industrial involvement, whereas in the social sciences they find this not to be the case (ibid. 756). This study thus illustrates a concern with links between excellent basic research and industrial innovation based on the idea that basic research and industrial innovation constitute two extremes in a linear spectrum akin to the one we have previously encountered in the context of Danish policy. Because of the imagined distance between these extremes, the idea of connecting them again becomes a matter of concern. Again, we encounter an idea of a ‘gap’ and a notion of ‘disciplinary distance’ to be ‘bridged’. In this argument, however, the excellence of technology-oriented disciplines is more easily used or applied in industry than excellent research from social science. In other words, aside from the distinction 99 between basic research and industrial innovation, it also introduces a classification of scientific disciplines according to how well their basic research activities match the demands of industry. While Perkmann et al. discuss the impact of scientific disciplines on industry, other studies address the interface between public and private research more directly. An example of this is Andrew Toole’s study “The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry” (Toole 2012). Toole is concerned with the complex relationship between public research and pharmaceutical innovation and, in particular, with the relation between public clinical research and innovation of new molecular entities (NME). Toole argues that industries are often assumed to benefit from publicly supported university research. Based on his study of pharmaceutical industry, he questions whether this is the case. He argues that factors that are usually seen as external to research, such as market size and the regulatory structure imposed by for instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), play a much more significant role than the involvement of university research. This study suggests that public university research does not have direct impact on industrial innovation and it thus questions prevalent ideas about innovation as being merely a matter of a disconnection of public and private research spheres. Perhaps even more intriguingly, Toole discusses the broader context for university-industry interaction. Rather than focusing exclusively on universities, industries and their interactions, he concludes that the innovation of companies in the pharmaceutical industry is mainly affected by mundane and traditional factors such as market size. Thus, even if this analysis is based on a traditional separation of public and private activities, it ends up insisting on the need to take other factors into consideration. 100 The various studies of Pasteur scientists, Mode 2 activities, excellent research, and industrial innovation that I have examined exemplify different categorizations of research that structure the analysis of university-industry interaction within the field of research policy studies. According to Perkmann et al. we are presently witness to a strong focus on the researcher as an individual, which has opened up for new insights in what drives collaboration. In “Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university–industry relations” (Perkmann et al. 2013), Perkmann et al. first note the increasing prevalence of studies focusing on academic scientists’ involvement in research collaboration. As they argue, academic researchers are involved in various forms of collaboration, including “collaborative research, contract research, consulting and informal relationships for university-industry knowledge transfer” (ibid. 423). Subsequently, the authors argue that these activities should be seen as “academic engagements” rather than “commercialization” activities. These “academic engagements” they argue are not in contrast to traditional academic activities but rather “closely aligned” with them and “pursued by academics to access resources supporting their research agendas” (ibid.). So we see here a form categorization of research and researchers that potentially questions the relevance of initiating analysis of university-industry interaction based on only considering the alignment of fundamentally misaligned interests and activities. Instead, they suggest that individual researchers are already engaging in diverse activities with companies without compromising their own research agenda. Thus, although many prevalent categorizations of research support the idea of universities and industries as separate domains, there are also categorizations, such as academic engagements, that seem to allow for a different perspective on interaction. 101 A stable image of interaction So what characterizes some of these prevalent ways of presenting and studying university-industry interaction? First, I have identified a recurrent tendency to analyze university-industry interaction in terms of ‘bridging gaps’ and ‘breaking barriers’. Although gaps and barriers take on different meanings in the literature, both terms assume that university and industry operate as distinct domains, either separated by a space or by an obstacle. Consequently, using these metaphors generates studies of the multitude of mechanisms, organizations and strategies that might be imagined to connect these severed domains. Second, I have observed a widely shared interest in what we might call optimization, focused on how to make the best and most effective use of university-industry interaction, for instance, in the form of industrial innovation. As we have seen, authors suggest that interaction can be improved through focus on diverse forms of governance, means of collaborating and communicating, and support mechanisms in the form of intermediary organizations. Finally, I have commented on both traditional and novel ways of classifying research and researchers. Among the traditional categorization schemes, we find those that juxtapose excellent research and industrial innovation. Newer schemes separate Star scientist from Pasteur scientists or Mode 1 from Mode 2 activities. Like the metaphors of gaps and barriers these categorizations of research have implications for how university-industry interaction is approached. Rather than investigate categorizations as they develop in practice, drawing on theoretical models these categorizations are applied to explore particular assumed forms of behavior and activities among researchers. Considering these findings together, which kind of image do we get of universityindustry interaction, the nature of research management, research collaboration, and different forms of research? I suggest we get an image of relatively stable 108 Shortly after the emergence of the Triple Helix, however, another model appeared, which has gained prominence and which seems to provide a slightly more nuanced framework for dealing with these issues. Thus, I continue to consider the framework of Mode 2 or ‘the new production of knowledge’ as it is also called. This framework is developed by Michael Gibbons et al. in The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Gibbons et al. 1994) and by Helga Nowotny et al. in Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Nowotny et al. 2001). Rather than look at university-industry-government relations specifically, this model considers the relationship between science and society more broadly. Like the Triple Helix, the Mode 2 model argues that the institution of science is presently undergoing rapid change and that it is strongly affected by a variety of societal agendas. Considering the extent to which national and European research strategies emphasize, for instance, research as “societal partnerships” (Regeringen 2012) this, to say the least, seems to be a relevant perspective today. So what are the elements of this model? Science and society in partnership In The New production of Knowledge, Gibbons et al. argued that we have experienced a shift in the way knowledge is produced and a changing relationship between science and society (Gibbons et al. 1994). Nowotny et al. further developed the framework in 2001 with the book Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Nowotny et al. 2001). Like Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, Gibbons and Nowotny et al. propose an open dynamic framework for re-thinking science and its relation to society; one that differs from previous sociological models in which science and society are seen as separate domains (Merton 1973). However, rather than arguing that previous models were wrong, 109 the authors argue that today we are witness to a change in science-society relations so that the Mertonian model requires adaptation. The Mode 2 framework is characterized by much closer interactions between science and society than those previous generations of sociologists of science encountered. Specifically, in Mode 2 science has become “context-sensitive” and even started to merge with society (Nowotny et al. 2001). Consequently, we are also witness to a new form of society, referred to as Mode 2 society that has started to “speak back” to science (ibid.). In a gestalt switch, society has become an agent influencing science, rather than a stable background supporting it. It is readily apparent that this framework differs radically from some of the studies previously discussed that look at universities and industry as separate domains connected mainly by ‘bridges’ (Kotha et al. 2013; Bruneel et al. 2010; Freitas et al. 2013; Yusuf 2008). For Gibbons and Nowotny et al., the relevant change that is occurring between science and society concerns not only the ‘bridge’ between science and society but also the very constitution of science and society. Science and society are equally affected and transformed by their mutual interactions. Gibbons and Nowotny et al. argue that the context-sensitivity of science is a strength rather than a weakness. For example, today, good science is not only evaluated by standards only developed within science but also defined by societal interests, needs and practices. We might see the idea of research based on demand-driven innovation as illustrating context-sensitivity. The Mode 2 model has been widely adopted, both in academic discussions and among policy makers. For instance, today, it is widely assumed among policy makers that we need to know how knowledge is produced before we can distribute public funds optimally. One might even see this framework as selfexemplifying, developing at the intersection of academic discussion and policy making, since one of its main developers, Helga Nowotny, is both president of the 110 European Research Council and Professor emeritus of Social Studies of Science, ETH Zurich. However, as we see in Danish research policy (see Chapter 8), more linear models also constantly challenge this dynamic framework. It seems that while the overall public research strategies draw on Mode 2 thinking,34 the specific organization of public funds turn to more linear models. This suggests that while it is easy to account for science and society relations at an overall strategic level, it is much harder to organize and manage according to them. Asymmetrical descriptions of science and society Although the Mode 2 framework has been widely adopted in research policy, it has also been criticized. One important criticism comes from the anthropologist Marilyn Strathern whose article “Re-describing Society” discusses the implications of the metaphor of a “partnership” between science and society (Strathern 2003a). Strathern suggests that while the Mode 2 model generally argues against a separation of science and society, the metaphors of “coevolution” and “co-mingling” that it draws on nonetheless implies just such a separation. After all, the pre-fix “co-” means ‘jointly’, ‘mutually’ or ‘together with another’. Even if this terminology is used to describe closely intermingled, even potentially merging, relations it also continues to maintain an image of two components. Consequently, “every attempt to show how science and society are implicated in one another also renews each as distinct objects” (ibid. 268). In the framework of Mode 2, science and society appears as each other’s rhetorical reference point, which according to Strathern has problematic analytical consequences: society is consequently always constituted in relation to science 34 See the Danish “Innovation Strategy” (Regeringen 2012) and the European research framework program “Horizon 2020”. 111 and never considered on its own terms. Strathern does not argue for a separation of domains but rather for a more flexible approach what science and society might mean. The fact that the idea of separate domains continues to haunt the Mode 2 framework becomes clearer when we consider that the notion of a partnership. According to Strathern, the notion of a partnership is closely related to the idea of a ‘transaction space’ between science and society. Nowotny et al. borrow the idea of “transaction” from the historian of science Peter Galison whose notion of the trading zone (itself adopted from an anthropological literature) illustrates how scientists representing “different cultures” work together (Galison 1997). Later in this chapter, I discuss the notion of the trading zone. Nowotny et al. uses the notion of a transaction space to argue that when interacting, science and society might have different interests: “each targets what it wants” (Strathern 2003a: 268). However, Strathern suggests, even though the Mode 2 model sees science and society as having potentially different interests, the very idea that they have entered a transaction space creates the expectation that they are nonetheless part of a mutual communication. In this way, Strathern argues that the Mode 2 framework entails not only a normatively imposed necessity of interaction but also a drive towards consensus: “The epistemology can be varied, but communication has to take place” (ibid.). Again, as we have seen before, interaction implies some kind of alignment because science and society “appear to be consonant with one another” (ibid. 274-275). What alternative does Strathern propose? According to Strathern, we do not need to imagine science and society as interacting partners. Drawing on ethnography from Papua New Guinea, she describes a controversy between a group of local miners and governmental representatives. In this situation, no appeal was made to a common language or to any necessary relationship between science and society. Science and society were 112 not named as distinct spheres and therefore there was no need to facilitate “comingling”. Instead the miners and governmental representatives made what Strathern terms a settlement in which they each subscribed to an accountability that did not require agreement or consensus. Each side simply had its own agenda. Contrary to Nowotny et al.’s framework, the interacting parties in Strathern’s example did not see alignment as a basic condition of their interaction but wanted instead to make their lack of agreement explicit: “In short, they were ready to enter into a social arrangement on the basis of difference, not consensus.” (ibid. 272) Strathern’s critique of the Mode 2 framework is partly driven by the idea that any general categorization of the components of science-society interaction misses the point: it never becomes completely clear what constitutes it and what it produces. Even so, something akin to the notion of a ‘transaction space’ can be extremely relevant when used to explore particular cases. For instance, according to Strathern, the Papua New Guinean example illustrates a situation in which two groups enter a social arrangement on the basis of difference and not consensus and transacts based on that recognition. What can transact however, are not abstractions, like science or government, but rather specific people with particular problems, issues and agendas (Strathern 2003a: 272). In this way, Strathern argues for an analytical sensitivity to the contexts of transactions and for substantiating what Gibbons, Nowotny et al. abstractly call Mode 2. Below, I return to what such an empirically oriented framework might look like. The models of Triple Helix and Mode 2 describe dynamic relations between the institutions of universities, industries and governments and science and society. These models both highlight the complex and dynamic relationships between science, society and business. From the perspective of these models, we clearly see entangled relations rather than separated domains. According to the models 113 of Triple Helix and Mode 2 interaction is a condition rather than an achievement created by ‘bridging gaps’ or ‘breaking barriers’. The main question they raises therefore concern the qualities of the interaction. But as Strathern notes, the image of interaction remain rather harmonious. What if science, government and business continuously interact but without any premise of consensus? In fact, other models argue specifically for such more antagonistic forms of convergence and for the prevalence of asymmetrical relations. For instance, the sociologists Steven Peter Vallas and Daniel Lee Kleinman propose that the outcome of increasingly closer relations between universities and industries is what they term “asymmetrical convergence” (Kleinman and Vallas 2006: 37; Vallas and Kleinman 2008). They note that universities and companies are certainly converging as a result of increasingly tight collaborative relations and develop increasingly similar characteristics, practices and norms. Thus, universities become focused on commercial outcomes and companies become interested in basic knowledge production. But this convergence is somewhat imbalanced, they suggest. For by focusing on commercialization, the overall purpose of universities is, in fact, changing while industry only focuses on basic knowledge production as a means to maintain their overall purpose of commercialization. The authors conclude that this interaction often results in some kind of industrial domination, a possibility that neither the Triple Helix nor Mode 2 affords. 35 35 In Denmark, the discussion of “imbalance” in university-industry collaboration has been prevalent in both academic and public debates (Emmeche and Faye 2010). See also Vedel and Gad 2011. 114 From interaction to co-production Until now, I have explored some of the prevalent ways in which universityindustry relations are conceptualized in academic literature related to research policy matters. As I have indicated, these studies open up for different perspectives on interaction between science, society and industry. But even so, we also see certain terminology, embedding particular metaphors and assumptions, shared by studies of university-industry relations. Implicitly or explicitly, university and industry are seen as separate domains that are somehow misaligned or disconnected. Accordingly, collaboration requires alignment and reconnection, which takes place as concern for ‘bridge building’. I have also identified a particular language of optimization. In order to collaborate, there are certain things that can and ought to be done such as finding an ideal partner or identifying the ideal means of communication. All of this presupposes that in advance of the actual interactions certain kinds of relations can be identified as particularly promising. In contrast, the perspective of optimization shows rather little attention to the actual dynamics of particular instances of university-industry interaction. There are, however, some models, such as the Triple Helix and Mode 2, which specifically address such dynamics. These models view the interrelations between universities, industry and government, and science and society, as an already existing condition. However, they imply rather harmonious relationships among the interrelating parties. Correspondingly, they are less adequate for analyzing the kinds of asymmetries such interrelations can imply, in the form of divergences in interests and agendas. As Strathern argues, it is therefore important to be empirically attentive to the different forms of interrelations that actually occur, and to their specific implications. Strathern develops what we might see as a ‘third’ position that involves neither separate domains nor harmonious consensus but approaches science-society interaction as 115 an empirical question. This approach implies describing actual empirical relations, as the title “Re-describing Society” indicates. Inspired by Strathern, I am interested in developing a framework suitable for studying strategic research in Lundbeck from such as third position. Rather than claiming to know in advance the general features of science-industry collaborations, I am interested in investigating them empirically. But although I insist on an empirical investigation this does not diminish my need for a conceptual framework to support, guide and focus my investigation. To develop this, I now look at how in the field of STS science-society interaction has also been conceptualized in terms of ‘co-production’ (Jasanoff 2004). First, I look at coproduction more generally and subsequently I discuss co-productionist concepts that have been developed specifically to analyze research collaboration. A co-production framework In discussions of science and policy, Sheila Jasanoff has introduced the concept of co-production to describe relations between science and society (Jasanoff 2004). One of the merits of co-production is that it offers an alternative to the analytical models surveyed above, which focus either on partnerships or maintaining a disconnection between science and industry. According to Jasanoff, “the dominant discourses of economics, sociology and political science lack vocabularies to make sense of the untidy, uneven processes through which the production of science and technology becomes entangled with social norms and hierarchies” (ibid. 2). Thus, co-production is premised on a critique of models that separate science from society, or the domain of “science, nature, facts, objectivity, reason, and policy” from the domain of “culture, values, subjectivity, emotion and politics” (ibid. 3). Co-production is in line with Strathern’s proposal to remain committed 116 to investigating and accounting for complex phenomena empirically, while avoiding the strategic deletions of particular contexts that facilitate a clear picture. In STS, analyses in the idiom of co-production have covered a number of themes that Jasanoff refers to as “the emergence of new phenomena” (Daston 2000; Pickering 1995: Latour 1993), “the resolution of controversy” (Richards and Martin 1995; Shapin and Shaffer 1985; Collins 1985), “the standardization of knowledge and technology” (Bowker and Star 1999; Jasanoff 1995; Shapin 1994; Porter 1992; Latour 1987; Kuhn 1962), and “the enculturation of scientific practices” (Knorr Cetina 1999; Rabinow 1996; Traweek 1988) (Jasanoff 2004: 56). Viewing co-production as something of an umbrella approach rather than an integrated theoretical framework, I move on to consider a number of concepts each of which might be seen to exemplify co-production. All of these concepts have been developed to analyze research collaboration but, as we shall see, they engage in this task from different angles and with somewhat different results. One main question that has been asked in STS is what characterizes the boundaries of science (Galison and Stump 1996; Gieryn 1999). According to the sociology of science affiliated with Robert Merton (Merton 1973), the institution of science has a number of unique features, which make its norms and practices distinct from other social domains. Not least, Merton argued, the institution of science is characterized by the obligation to set aside private interest and address scientific questions in a disinterested manner (ibid.). This idea has been widely contested. For instance, the Belgian philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers has argued that far from being “dis-interested” scientists are linked through interest (Stengers 1997). New findings, technologies and hypotheses attract interest, while the very process of “becoming interested” can be life changing for scientists 117 required to rethink their theories, projects, methods and technologies (ibid. 8384). Among STS scholars, interest has also been a key notion in understanding how laboratory findings become scientific facts (Latour 1983; 1988). In Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar 1979), Latour and Woolgar showed how facts gain credibility and gradually become harder to contest as they are taken up in societal practices outside of laboratory. One famous example is Louis Pasteur’s invention of microbes that gradually was adopted for antibiotic vaccination across France (Latour 1988). Here, there is no strong boundary between the scientific lab and the outside world. Instead, the inside and the outside were, in Jasanoff’s term, coproduced. The sociologist Thomas Gieryn summarizes this view with his observation that the boundaries of science are cultural and “permeable” (Gieryn 1999: 27). If the boundaries between science and society are permeable and there are usually many interests at stake then how to understand the phenomenon of research collaboration? Several studies of scientific collaboration, which broadly align with the notion of co-production, have dealt specifically with the question of how scientists with different backgrounds and viewpoints work together and come to define shared objects of collaboration. I now look at some of these concepts that have been developed specifically to describe research collaboration. First I present them and then I comment on the relevance of these concepts for my case and research questions. Boundary objects Most famous among these concepts is Star and Griesemer’s notion of the boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989). Star and Griesemer defined their 124 is preventing effective research. Rather, they argue that scientific practice is heterogeneous and, therefore, the fact that nonetheless researchers do collaborate is considered an interesting research problem. Against all odds, the participants somehow manage to collaborate; so how is this practically possible? Addressing this question, these scholars show how co-production takes place in terms of provisional alignment via boundary objects, doable problems and trading zones. Even if, within a co-productionist imaginary, this alignment is only a temporary construction, it is still worthwhile to look further into what is presumed by this mode of analysis concerning collaborative sameness and difference. In general, the starting point for all three concepts is that something needs to be done, whether it is constructing shared goals, common languages, standardized packages, or rules of exchange. Each of these terms directs the attention to construction of sameness rather than difference. Analyzing university-industry collaboration in terms of constructing trading zone entails focusing on how the collaborating parties connect by establishing a kind of mutual understanding through a shared language. Focusing on how such trading zones become constructed has the implication that differences between the participants become less distinct. The awareness of the analyst is on how alignment takes place. But perhaps, as Strathern suggests, some arrangements might be based on explicating and keeping in view these differences? Whereas the notions of boundary objects, trading zones and doable problems might see the construction of temporary homogeneity as the main driver of collaboration, I am interested in a conceptual framework that is also suitable for analyzing collaboration as a process of explicating difference. It seems possible to think of situations where the participants in a science-industry collaboration do not merge but rather develop relations based on differentiating constructions of their relation. I am wondering if it might not be relevant and useful to develop a 125 co-production framework that gives attention to both the construction of sameness and difference. Not predictable, stable or general differences between science and industry but subtle and ongoing differentiations that emerge and dissolve in the course of a collaboration. Might we even think of the doability of a research project as the result of explicating such differences? What kind of framework would make it possible to explore such explication? Drawing on Fujimura’s terminology, might we not expect to see articulation work related to developing differences? Thus drawing on Star and Griesemer, Fujimura, and Galison, I raise a slightly different question. Are there collaborations that work in spite of very little alignment? What is the role of explicating difference in collaborations? How are the actions of the collaborating participants related, or not related, to institutional affiliations? In order to explore these questions, I introduce and develop the concept of the screen in the remaining parts of this chapter. The notion is to be seen as a further development of co-productionist studies of research collaboration. I think of my research interest in terms of what I call ‘misaligned co-production’, suggesting that co-production sometimes also takes the form of misalignment. In Chapters 10-13, it will be clearer what this means in practice when I explore science-industry collaboration in the context of Lundbeck. Introducing screens When I started to explore strategic research and science-industry collaboration in Lundbeck, I noticed that research managers spoke a lot about something they called screening. Screening appeared in many forms. In the laboratory, screening seemed to involve the design of assays to test various hypotheses. In scientific journals and at conferences, screening for new ideas involved evaluating the state 126 of the art of research fields. Then there were screening activities related to evaluating the quality and suitability of potential external partners. Such screening involved search tours and meetings with external researchers and companies. Finally, I noticed a form of screening related to identifying new markets or defining unmet needs in the landscape of patients, competitors and regulatory institutions. It seemed obvious that these forms of screening were quite different. Where some forms, such as screening in the lab, seemed a very purposeful activity, other forms, such as screening of new partners, involved more experimentation. But although they entailed different activities, forms of screening also seemed to share something important. They implied ways of categorizing and ordering research in Lundbeck. Upon this realization, I noticed that the notion of screens has also been discussed in the field of STS. In STS, screens are used to analyze forms of categorizing and ordering. Of particular relevance is the work of the philosopher and ethnographer Helen Verran who has argued that analytical attentiveness to screens holds the promise of facilitating novel accounts of science and technology (Winthereik et al. 2011). As Verran notes, and in line with my empirical observations, screens can be many things and they can take many forms. Different screens, she suggests, surround us. There are the obvious physical screens of computers, cameras or phones. There are also entities that we might not immediately think of as screens but nonetheless imply screening, in the sense of categorizing, like diagrams, lists, and maps. Finally, we might think of screens in a more analytical sense as specific conceptual, discursive or material framings of what matters for a practice (Latour 2004). Due to this empirical and conceptual convergence, I gradually became curious about the potential value of using screens as an analytical device for describing research collaboration and management. In particular, I wondered whether the 127 notion of screens could be used as a resource for addressing how strategic research unfolded in the empirical context of Lundbeck. The potential value of this would be to introduce a concept that had an empirical bearing among my informants while, at the same time, being very different from the usual metaphors outlined above describing strategic research in terms of ‘bridging’, connecting or generally aligning. In that sense, the notion of screens implies a particular kind of undecided or lateral position (Maurer 2005), neither quite empirical and nor quite conceptual, or both at once, but with varying valences depending on context. Below I flesh out this idea, by specifying notion of screens that allow me to take into account some of the multiple screens encountered empirically. To strengthen this analytical device, I also discuss a number of other concepts from STS, which resemble screening in the sense that I work with the concept. This framework, I suggest, allow me to shed further light on issues of science-industry collaboration and strategic research practices in the following chapters. Screens in STS The notion of screens is not a mainstream concept in STS. However, Helen Verran has recently discussed screens in a way that I find valuable for the purpose of this project. Verran draws a parallel between screens and indices, and she argues that screens are primarily interesting to study for their interventionist capacities. Verran develops her concept of screens by way of semiotics. In particular, inspired by Charles Sanders Peirce, Verran proposes that screens are like ‘indices’ (Winthereik et al. 2011; Verran 2013). In Peirce’s terminology, an index is defined by having a direct relation to its referent. The statement “no smoke without fire” exemplifies an index. Here, smoke indices fire, since fire is a precondition for smoke, to which it directly gives rise. For another example, one might think of a 128 medical symptom as an index of a disease. Here, a disease produces the symptom, and the symptom, like fever, indexes the disease. By understanding screens as indices, Verran argues that screens have a direct relation to a practice.36 Though semiotics is often taken as a purely linguistic endeavor, Verran suggests that screen-indices go beyond language: they intervene in the world, organize it and shape action. Like a book index, for example, a screen implies a particular organization that facilitates certain forms of interaction (finding the passages with the key words listed in the index) but precludes others (finding passages with words not indexed). The keywords thus enable a particular and highly structured kind of interaction with the book. It is not simply a representation of the book’s content; it intervenes in the readers’ worlds by arranging things in a particular way and creating specific options for interacting with them. Verran’s screen-indices are relevant starting points for my investigation of science-industry collaboration and aim of developing a framework capable of describing misaligned co-production. Attentiveness to the multiple forms of screening that occur in research collaboration and management facilitates analysis of the implied orders and forms of ordering that these practices draw upon. In recent work, Verran has engaged in a similar analysis of organizational risk communication, which followed the relation between screens and practices of risk (Verran and de Weydenthal forthcoming). Here, she demonstrates how the notion of screens might be used in analyses of organizational dynamics. But even so my problems are also in some ways different.37 36 Verran also bases her concept on Gilles Deleuze’s notion of screens. Deleuze argues that screens are like membranes that filter things in particular ways (Deleuze 1993). 37 See Vedel 2011 for a discussion of screens. I became interested in screens in 2010 during a PhD course on the topic with Helen Verran and Lucy Suchman. 129 Where Verran uses screens to look at somewhat established orders and the ordering they entail I am interested in using screens to study practices that imply more dynamic constructions of order. My material implies developing strategies and collaborations rather than consist of fairly instituted constructions. Therefore, I develop the concept to fit my research interests in misaligned coproduction and my empirical context of emergent strategies and collaborations. In order to further develop the notion of screens, I draw on two additional concepts that I use to emphasize and explore important aspects of my empirical material. Screens as emergent relations and multiple justifications The first notion that I draw on to further develop a notion of screens is Strathern’s idea of “emergent relations” (Strathern 2003b). Strathern suggests that we should see scientific practice as a continuous process of emergent relations. In this way, the notion directly addresses the dynamic nature of collaboration. In her discussion of emergent relations, Strathern draws on the historian of science Mario Biagioli’s idea of “multi-authorship” (Biagioli 2003). Multiple authors constitute scientific practice to the extent that it may even be difficult to clearly determine who and what has been involved in scientific inventions (Strathern 2003b: 167). Drawing a parallel between “kinship relations” and “authorship”, Strathern further argues that in present scientific practices notions such as “conception”, “origin” and “ownership” are not given but rather continuously reconfigured (Strathern 2003b: 168-169). Instead of seeing science-industry collaboration as a two-sided affair in which university-based researchers form one coherent part and industrial researchers constitute another part, this encourages a view of collaboration as produced by multiple contributions. It becomes less predictable which contributions will be made by whom and from 130 where. In addition, an interest in emerging relations give attention to ways in which objects and researchers change over the course of a scientific project. Rather than assuming well-established relations between participants, we can thus think of collaborations as constituted by developing connections between different “authors” and their various forms of collaborative “work”. I also take inspiration from the work of French sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot on different “logics of justification” (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006).38 Rather than viewing collaborative misunderstandings as due to cultural differences we might see them as exemplifying how participants appeal, more or less consciously, to different ways of justifying action. Boltanski and Thévenot’s notion helps to expand the spectrum of explanations for collaborators’ actions by offering a nuanced alternative to the notion that collaborators must be either academic or industrial and that each relies on a single mode of justification. I do not directly apply Boltanski and Thévenot’s framework but rather take inspiration from the general idea that the same situation might be seen and interpreted based on different repertoires of explanation. Thus, I use this approach to explore the different justificatory logics that might be used even by the same researcher or group of researchers in various situations. As described earlier, we often encounter the idea that academic researchers apply one consistent line of thinking caused by their professional and institutional affiliation. By developing the notion of multiple screens to take into account different forms of ordering, emergent relations and the varied use of justificatory logics in research collaboration, I hope to offer a rich picture of such collaborations, premised on difference and divergence rather than on consensus and harmony or 38 Boltanski and Thévenot categorize justification into six “logics”: civic, market, industrial, domestic, inspiration and fame (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006). 131 on inherently incommensurable differences. I now continue to specify the conceptual and empirical problems that my use of screens should be able to cover. The multiple screens of collaboration In this section, I begin to develop a notion of screens based on the particular empirical and conceptual problems that my research topic raises. So first, what kind of problems should my notion of screens address? Answering this question requires reflection on both the nature of my material and the research interests of this thesis, which are different from Verran’s. First, I study how strategic research unfolds in Lundbeck. These are not strategies that are already settled. My material concerns the making of new strategies and approaches, which takes place in dynamic, continuous processes of experimentation. Verran’s notion of screens as indices that imply orders and are ordering is not completely adequate for studying practices and strategies that are unsettled and in process. Rather than drawing on strategies, diagrams and lists, these things emerge in an experimental process and display different expected futures for Lundbeck. I would like to address this dynamic, experimenting and “future-generating” aspect of strategy making (Jensen 2005; Rheinberger 1997) in my screens. Also, strategic research seems to involve attaching particular importance to something, which is also an aspect of this experimenting process that I would like to address. So I am conceptually interested in something more dynamic than studying orders and ordering imply. Second, I study science-industry collaboration and this is an arena of dynamic and developing entities rather than stable ones. In Lundbeck, the above-mentioned strategy making involves experimentation not only with strategies but also with 132 actual collaboration and conditions for these. As mentioned, the notion of the screen should facilitate analysis of how collaboration develops not only in alignment processes but also in activities that misalign the participants in different ways. Verran’s orders could potentially cover alignment and misalignment as involving different orders with implications for practice. However, orders seem to imply something slightly more permanent than what I have in mind. Like Fujimura, I want to consider collaborations from beginning to end and see how the participants construct their relation in different ways and with changing implications for the collaboration. Third, my material concerns different forms of differentiation. Both scienceindustry collaboration and strategy-making seem not only to be about showing and making visible, but also about hiding and ignoring. In science-industry collaboration, some things are shared while others are rendered invisible, or hidden. Collaborative strategies in the pharmaceutical industry are famous for their confidentiality. In practice, the concerns with confidentiality involve not only sharing knowledge but also strategically hiding knowledge. Similarly, the making of strategies implies that some opportunities are chosen while others are strategically ignored. The analytical screens that I develop should be able to cover this aspect of co-production, which concerns leaving something out of sight or simply unshared. Rather than use one screen to cover these requirements, I will thus develop a framework of multiple screens. In everyday language and dictionary definitions screens have many meanings. Some appear rather more straightforward than Verran’s view of screens as indices. For example, to screen means: 133 x To conceal, protect, or shelter (someone or something) with a screen or something forming a screen x To show (a film or video) or broadcast (a television program) x To test (a person or substance) for the presence or absence of a disease x To pass (a substance such as grain or coal) through a large sieve or screen, especially so as to sort it into different sizes39 According to dictionary definitions, “to screen” also means “to keep something safe and shielded from the outside” and, in fact, also the opposite, “to show and put forward”. To screen can also have a scientific meaning, namely to test something in a systematic way. Finally, screening can be used to emphasize the activity of categorizing and sorting according to a particular purpose or aim. Considering these diverse definitions and comparing them with the kind of processes and problems I wish to address in my material has allowed me to identify three forms of screens that I view as particularly important for the present analysis. Together, I propose they enable the analysis of a series of important aspects of how strategic research and university-industry relations evolve in Lundbeck. I refer to these screens as projecting screens, categorizing screens and occluding screens. Projecting screens Several things might be understood as projecting screens. Research strategy documents illustrate one very material form of screens that display an expectation to research and the future it generates. As projecting screens, strategy documents describe a relation between present research activities and future 39 www.oxforddictionaries.com. 140 research interests are different – I explore experimentation, strategies and collaboration – I develop the notion of screens further. With inspiration from Strathern and Boltanski and Thévenot, I have defined three specific forms of screens – projecting, categorizing and occluding screens. These screens assist me develop nuanced empirically oriented accounts of strategic research and scienceindustry collaboration in Lundbeck. With this conceptual framework of screens in mind, I now turn to Lundbeck. 141 10. MANAGING EMERGENT RELATIONS Early in my fieldwork, I took an interest in a particular collaboration that Lundbeck had initiated with a group of university-based researchers. Lundbeck research managers referred to this collaboration as “the neurocell collaboration”.45 It concerned the effect of a biological mechanism, neurocell, for drug discovery. This chapter investigates how strategic research developed in Lundbeck in relation to a specific collaboration. My inquiry focuses on the following questions: How did Lundbeck research managers come to see this collaboration as strategic research? What characterized the research as scienceindustry collaboration? What did managing this collaboration imply? I analyze these questions using the concept of screens that I defined in Chapter 9 as an analytical tool. I look at how strategic research developed in this collaboration in processes of projecting, categorizing and occluding screenings. Discussion in this chapter is based on participant observation in approximately 20 meetings that occurred during the years from 2008 to 2010. In addition, this discussion draws on interviews with several Lundbeck research managers that were particularly involved in this collaboration. I also base this chapter on informal discussions with research managers, since a part of the activity related 45 Neurocell is a pseudonym. In the following four empirical chapters, I use pseudonyms for research managers in Lundbeck and their key collaborators. See Appendix D for an overview of key people. I mention the research managers’ actual title in Lundbeck to give the reader insight into their position in the company and into how they, in terms of their position, are related to other research managers. I have chosen to use pseudonyms to be able to differentiate the research managers. For instance, using pseudonyms, I illustrate how the research managers saw particular events differently, how the same research manager sometimes reflected on the same event in different ways, and how the research managers were involved in quite different activities. I sometimes group the research managers as “research managers in Lundbeck” as they also at times described themselves in general terms, typically in relation to collaborators inside or outside Lundbeck. 142 to this collaboration took place outside of formal meetings, in hallways and during lunch. Hallway discussion often ended with reflections such as “by the way, I thought about the neurocell collaboration, and this is what I think we should do.” Taking informal discussions into consideration, formal meetings were often summarizing reflections that the research managers continuously had about ongoing collaborations. First, I offer a short introduction to what characterized Lundbeck research managers’ activities concerning science-industry collaborations in general. Then, I describe what characterized the neurocell collaboration and how the collaboration changed and developed during key events. These events bear witness to the emergent nature of the collaboration. Subsequently, I analyze disconcertment in two episodes. I propose that investigating the disconcertment that emerged in the process of managing this collaboration highlights important dimensions of the nature of strategic research and science-industry collaboration. Finally, I summarize how the concept of screens is useful for making sense of this case. Becoming interested in science-industry collaboration I began to investigate external collaboration in Lundbeck by observing specific collaborations and activities related to managing them. Around 2009 to 2010, a group of Lundbeck research managers regularly discussed a handful of research collaborations. These research managers were Jens, who was the head of research; Lars, who was head of drug discovery; and Hans, the divisional director of molecular neurobiology. Occasionally, this group was expanded to include members of the two main management groups, the Research Management Board (RMB) and the Drug Discovery Management Team (DDMT). On other occasions, 143 the group expanded to include members from other parts of Lundbeck, such as Finance, Business Development, Patents and Trademarks, and Legal. Besides the neurocell collaboration, the collaborations that the research managers regularly discussed were a collaboration with an American non-profit research institution, a potential research collaboration with a Dutch biotech company, and a collaboration within a large European research initiative that involved both universities and companies. One of my immediate observations was that each of these collaborations was very different from one another. Each of them even appeared to represent a different model of collaboration. Lundbeck’s collaborators varied from biotech companies to academic research groups, and the size of the collaborations also changed from small groups to extensive networks of participants. Likewise, it differed who had taken the initiative to collaborate. However, in spite of these apparent differences, it was equally apparent that the group of research managers strategically categorized these four collaborations together and drew parallels between them. Indeed, they often described them as alike, simply because the collaborations shared an external element. They also often referred to these collaborations as similar because they all focused on a particular biological mechanism that was expected to have an important role in diseases in the central nervous system. Researching these biological mechanisms required external collaboration since building up the expertise in-house was seen as too long-term and inflexible. The biological mechanisms were thus both indicative in terms of a new strategy and had the potential to profoundly change the future pipeline of Lundbeck. Discussing collaborations and making specific decisions about them were therefore at once a matter of dealing with them individually and in relation to overall strategy. 144 For this investigation, I focused on those activities that could be observed when attempting to make sense of these strategic considerations about collaborations. First of all, I observed that the research managers spent a lot of time in meetings in which individual collaborations were discussed and plans were made. Collaboration implied tasks such as planning up-coming meetings with external collaborators; discussing scenarios for collaboration contracts; debating governance structures, both in-house and in relation to the external groups; and reflecting on incentive structures and future scenarios for these collaborations. Dealing with external collaboration also included preparing presentations for Lundbeck’s general management in the form of the Board of Directors46 and the Corporate Management Group47 that were to approve large investments in new research. The research managers raised a number of questions during the treatment of each collaboration: What are the primary incentives that motivate and encourage this research, for us and for the external collaborators? How do we manage and influence the development of the collaboration? How does the potential outcome of this collaboration relate to in-house activities? How do we present this opportunity to the general management as valuable and worth investing in? Although these questions were far from trivial and were given serious thought, the research managers approached them with an interesting mix of ease and optimism. Though the developing collaborations represented something new and in some sense unfamiliar, this group of research managers had a familiar way of dealing with new and uncertain things, on which they were clearly drawing. Thus, 46 Lundbeck’s Board of Directors consists of six external directors that are elected by Lundbeck’s shareholders and three members elected by Lundbeck’s Danish employees. 47 The Corporate Management Group (until 2011) consisted of the heads of Lundbeck’s main divisions. Today this larger group is replaced with the Executive Management that consists of the CEO, the head of R&D, and the head of Finance & IT. 145 despite the apparent risks of engaging in these collaborations, I noticed both laughter and confidence among this group of managers. The neurocell collaboration particularly caught my attention. I observed that the group of Lundbeck research managers spent a lot of time on this collaboration, and that they were especially attentive to how this collaboration was taking shape. They had previously interacted with members of the university-based research group with whom they were collaborating, but it appeared that the research had only recently started to look particularly interesting and promising. Thus, deciding what to do about the collaboration was particularly crucial. The neurocell collaboration In 2003, a group of researchers made a discovery about the behavior of the receptor, neurocell, a discovery that soon after was published in a leading scientific journal. The authors had found that neurocell, a biological mechanism in the brain, which was usually seen as playing an active role in cell growth, was sometimes, under certain conditions, actively involved in the opposite process of cell death. The authors noted the fascinating phenomenon that in certain situations, for instance, in the case of stroke, the body’s own protein immediately starts to kill brain cells, within minutes making the damage of a stroke worse. This discovery had broad relevance, not only for future research but also for drug discovery. For one thing, it became immediately interesting to understand how one might prevent the activation of the neurocell in situations of cell degeneration through drug-based control of molecule interaction. The discovery of the surprising effects of neurocell created a lot of attention, not only in international research circles, but also in the Danish national context. Thus, in 2005, the Lundbeck Foundation, an industrial foundation granting money 146 for biomedical and natural science, and the major shareholder of Lundbeck A/S, funded a Centre of Excellence with the two leading Danish authors of the discovery, Martin and Søren. The center, known as BRAIN, was established at a university in conjunction with a department of biomedicine. BRAIN focused on the molecular, cellular, as well as physiological, functions of neurocell. Hence, the center’s activities were inherently interdisciplinary, spanning studies of receptor crystal-structure and studies of physiological functions in animal models. It also drew on a large number of methodologies, including neurophysiology, protein structure, genetics and stereology. At the university, the center connected a number of departments across faculties and across specialties within the faculty of health, such as the departments of biomedicine and clinical medicine. The center also had a number of official international collaboration partners, among these the co-author of the 2004 publication, Henrik, who was employed at a different university. However, the discovery of neurocell’s lethal behavior did not merely result in strengthening academic research at BRAIN. Simultaneously, Martin and Henrik founded a private biotech company called PsychoIndex, through which they filed a number of patents involving neurocell technologies. As owners of PsychoIndex, Martin and Henrik contacted research managers at Lundbeck to discuss a collaboration agreement. According to my interviews with Lundbeck research managers, Martin and Henrik were excited about the potential commercial aspects of their research and particularly interested in the opportunity to develop a drug for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Their initial contact led to a number of meetings, including visits at the university and at Lundbeck. Finally, it led to a small research agreement in which Lundbeck would test the technologies of PsychoIndex. 147 In the years 2006-2008, the research field of neurocell grew stronger. At BRAIN and at the university that the center collaborated with, intensified research activities resulted in several new discoveries that were published in high-profile journals including Nature Neuroscience, Nature Reviews, and Journal of Neuroscience. As more specific ideas for how to use the findings in drug discovery developed, the collaboration between Lundbeck and the founders of PsychoIndex grew increasingly interesting. The group of research managers at Lundbeck spent much time contemplating how to develop the collaboration. They were especially curious about the value of the patent filings from PsychoIndex and about the risk of another pharmaceutical company purchasing these patents, thus blocking the way for Lundbeck’s ideas concerning developing a drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Worrying about how to respond to this risk involved consideration of a number of questions. For example, would it be better to acquire the patent applications or rather to let them mature in the context of PsychoIndex and in relation to BRAIN’s research activities? Considered in isolation, the patent files were not of obvious value. The files proposed a very broadly defined patent that would only rarely be approved. Even if they were approved, it was not obvious how they would lead to a new drug. Nonetheless, there was something potentially valuable and interesting about the patent files and their prospects of commercial use. As the result of a thorough due diligence process in 2009, the research managers at Lundbeck decided to buy PsychoIndex, thereby making PsychoIndex a subsidiary to Lundbeck. Martin remained in charge of PsychoIndex as the key executive. This generated a number of new relations between Lundbeck and the researcher Martin. From the perspective of Lundbeck, the collaboration changed. Originally, the collaboration had relied on one main relation between Lundbeck 148 and the owners of PsychoIndex. Now, it relied on three separate relations between Lundbeck and external collaborators. These new relations were described in three contracts. The first contract concerned the acquisition in which Lundbeck purchased the assets of PsychoIndex; this was an exchange of money for patents. The second contract was a consultancy agreement with the owners of PsychoIndex in which the owners advised Lundbeck on how to use the patents and technologies in their further investigations into the use of neurocell as a target for drugs; this was an exchange of money for advice. Finally, a third contract related to Martin implied a new relation between Lundbeck and the university research group. This contract stipulated that Lundbeck would give an annual grant to the group in return of a ‘first right of refusal’ to discoveries made by Martin. This right implied that, before publishing, Martin would share new discoveries with Lundbeck and give the company the chance to patent these discoveries before any other companies was given the option. Both the university and Lundbeck viewed these agreements as a success. At the university, it was presented as a case of how funds for “free” basic research turned into knowledge that could subsequently be taken advantage of by industry. In Lundbeck, it was seen as a success to have acquired the patents and established a strong collaboration with the university-based research group. With this background in mind, I now turn to a more careful discussion of the neurocell collaboration. Just from lining up the key events, it is clear that the collaboration evolved around a biological mechanism and a number of key people, among these three Lundbeck research managers, Jens, Lars, and Hans, and three researchers employed at universities, Martin, Søren, and Henrik. What I want to highlight, however, is the way key people emerged in different roles and relations, both as users and producers of knowledge, through the collaboration (Woolgar 149 1991). In the university context, for instance, Martin is a producer of new knowledge about neurocell behavior. However, he is also a user of the same knowledge in the context of PsychoIndex, where he files patents to sell to Lundbeck. This already suggests that he is in fact related to both Lundbeck and to the university research group in multiple ways. Martin, we might say, singlehandedly creates numerous science-industry relations across traditional institutional boundaries. The fact that we can observe this merely by describing the main events of the collaboration suggests that understandings of research collaboration indeed are in need of more complex and dynamic characterizations than the black and white alternatives with which we are too often presented. Using Strathern’s terms, we are witness to a situation in which the relations between author and work are neither straightforward nor stable, but rather emergent and negotiated in the process (Strathern 2003b). In fact, exploring the notion of the origin of ideas and discoveries became important for managing the collaboration. So, how, more specifically, can we characterize the emergent relations that constitute this collaboration? To explore this, I now attend to two moments of disconcertment that I observed while participating in discussions of the neurocell collaboration that took place in Lundbeck. As described in Chapter 7, I use disconcertment as a tool for selecting and exploring instances where different screens appear and collide, creating a fundamental unsettlement. The transfer document Early in 2009, the research managers’ considerations in relation to taking over PsychoIndex involved a process of due diligence. Due diligence is a detailed investigation of everything related to a business that takes place prior to signing a 252 While our task was to stimulate discussion about project leaders, the list seemed at once universal and disconnected from the current situation in Lundbeck. It failed to give a qualified estimate of the future that Synapse was generating, and it also failed to make a strong connection between that potential future and the specific implications for project leaders. Nonetheless, to my considerable surprise, the description of the project leader of the future did not at all disconcert the RMB, which I return to. Before describing the reception of the description, I briefly introduce the context of the goal coordination meeting. As the name suggests, at this time in Lundbeck coordination was at the center of the research managers’ attention. The goal coordination meeting The annual goal coordination meeting had the purpose of organizing and aligning the specific goals for each area within research in Lundbeck. These areas were Drug Discovery Research, Non-Clinical Safety Research, and Patents and Trademarks. Within the area of Drug Discovery, two research sites needed to be aligned: the site in Denmark and the site in the US. Coordinating ideas of research between the Danish and the US site was a constant matter of concern for research managers. Even though the US site also involved drug discovery, it was seen as just as external to Danish drug discovery as other divisions of Lundbeck.57 The coordination of goals then implied that the head of each research area within the RMB would give a presentation about the coming year’s goals, and they would lead to a joint discussion about coherence. At this particular meeting two 57 The coordination between the Lundbeck DK and US research sites is a story in itself that I have chosen not to include in this thesis. I visited the US site in New Jersey in May 2010. Here, I conducted approximately 20 interviews with US research managers. In addition, I held two workshops similar to the “Optimize External Research Collaboration” and “Future models of collaboration” seminars. 253 additional items were on the agenda. The first was a new set of operational principles introduced by the general management of Lundbeck. The second was the project leader of the future. The goals coordination meeting took place at Munkebo Kro, a luxurious restaurant and conference venue in Northern Funen, Denmark. The participants were the RMB members and each of their management teams. Thus, the DDMT participated along with the management teams of Non-Clinical Safety Research, Patents and Trademarks, and the US management teams. In addition to these ordinary participants, a number of guests were invited in relation to the additional agenda items. Morten, the human resource manager, and Elena, a human resource manager from the US site, led the discussion about the new operating principles, and Andreas and I participated in the discussion of project leaders. The meeting took place over three days. The participants arrived in the evening on the first day to have dinner and socialize. On the second day, the two additional agenda items were discussed. On the third day, the guests parted and the research managers had their goal coordination discussion. Let us then consider the screening of research that emerged during these discussions, and the subsequent screening of project leaders and the future organization of Lundbeck. The culture of research On the second day of the meeting, Jens began by giving a presentation that related the task of coordinating goals and developing joint operating principles to Lundbeck’s current situation. This involved depicting the broader purpose of Synapse and the way in which Lundbeck, in recent years, had developed as a company. To do this, he used a metaphor of trees. 254 Illustration 7: The tree metaphor of Lundbeck’s development. Jens’ slide showed two trees. One was withered, in brown and grey colors; it was lifeless with almost no branches. The other was large and strong, with lots of branches and thick with green leaves. After a sluggish period, Lundbeck had recently experienced very considerable growth. The thriving green tree illustrated this. However, as also illustrated by this tree, the growth was rather uncontrolled. In his imagery, each branch represented a research project that had been initiated without prior coordination with other projects. Because there had been little coordination in recent years, the result had been that research had developed rather chaotically. The task of Synapse was consequently to “prune the tree”, as Jens described. This illustrated a new approach to research that entailed much more communication and coordination between different research practices, as the metaphor of the synapse itself indicated. Although “pruning the tree” immediately seemed to suggest something radically new and different compared with the image of a green leafy tree, it did not, to my surprise, evoke any strong reactions from the group of research managers. The 255 use of images was fascinating, since the green tree was contrasted with the withered tree that represented the past. However, the slide did not have an image of a tree after it had been pruned, and thus the green tree seemed to illustrate something healthy and desirable. But the green tree did not represent the new direction; rather the new direction was evoked with the expression of “pruning the tree”. The idea of “pruning the tree” seemed to suggest reducing research projects in number or controlling them to a much larger extent than previously. Thus, it surprised me that the group of research managers did not react more explicitly to what the images were suggesting, and that they seemed to accept that research needed to be subjected to more control. I see the image of the trees, combined with the expression of “pruning the tree,” as a screen that projects an idea of future research practices in Lundbeck as increasingly controlled. In contrast to Jens’ presentation, the following presentation on the new operating principles deeply disturbed some of the participating research managers. Elena, the human resource manager from the US research site, opened the discussion of Lundbeck’s future operating principles. With the aim of stimulating a more coherent culture in Lundbeck, the general management had introduced four principles that were, according to research managers, somewhat enforced on them. Indeed, it was quite unclear to many of the research managers where the principles came from and what they meant. They suggested that the main idea was that if employees in Lundbeck followed these principles in whatever practices in which they were involved, Lundbeck would operate better as a business. First, Elena introduced the four new principles. They were: “Own the future”, “Be ambitious and take action”, “Better for less” and “Create results – together”. As she explained, these principles were meant to be included as soon as possible, both in the annual goals and in the individual goals of all employees. But 256 what might they mean in the practical context of research? For instance, what would exemplify a “Better for less” approach? To inspire a discussion about their adaptation, Elena, offered an introduction to the notion of “culture”. “Each organization has a unique culture”, she argued, “and so does Lundbeck”. “But what is culture?” she asked. There were no responses from the audience. The situation started to grow uncomfortable. “Well, I have brought some examples of culture,” she said, and put on a slide show. The first slide had the title “What is Culture?” and showed a cartoon. Illustration 8: The cartoon illustration of corporate culture. Two men sat behind desks wearing oversized harlequin hats. One of them says to the other: “I don’t know how it started, either. All I know is that it is part of our corporate culture.” Her second example concerned a company in which the CEO was always hostile towards his employees. He would often throw pens at his employees if they did not do as told. Elena argued, “This is also culture.” Then Elena said to the crowd of managers, “So, you see, culture is important,” and she asked, “The question is how do we motivate employees to adapt to these 257 operating principles, for example, how do we motivate them to ‘think better with less’?” Anne, one of the members of DDMT, was clearly affected by the presentation. With manifest irritation she exclaimed: “But this has nothing to do with us!” This abrupt confrontation clearly unsettled the participants in the room. Some started to laugh since the confrontation itself was slightly embarrassing. But Anne continued, “The way you talk about culture has nothing to do with us.” Elena looked completely surprised by the sudden attack and asked why. “Researchers are clearly different,” Anne argued, pointing to the slide with the two men wearing harlequin hats. “They are not motivated by external factors like you’re suggesting. My employees are driven by curiosity, not some overall principles.” What seemed to take place in the situation was a discussion between two different perspectives. Where Elena gave an image of culture by drawing on a somewhat popular idea of culture, Anne presented research as a unique practice. Elena suggested that culture is what makes a group of people cohere. Then she addressed the question of what motivates people to work more efficiently and coherently in a company, thus making research a practice quite similar to other non-research practices. Anne’s image of research as a unique practice generated a different screen, categorizing researchers from non-researchers. Drawing on this screen, Anne suggested that researchers are not motivated by external factors but rather work from a profound interest. The screen that Anne’s account of researchers produced has the implication of presenting researchers in Lundbeck almost as academics, to some extent detached from the business of Lundbeck. This was somewhat surprising, considering that this screening of research that I read as suggesting something academic took place in the top research management in Lundbeck. However, it was a significant screening that was not left unchallenged. 258 Another research manager, Irene, who was Danish but working as a divisional director in the US site, interrupted the discussion between Anne and Elena with repressed laughter to say, “Well, researchers think they are different but they are really not.” This created some amusement, but the affected research manager, Anne, did not laugh. Clearly annoyed, she responded, “Tell me specifically how this applies to us and what we are confronted with?” She added that she saw no point in discussing operational principle “in loose terms”. Then Anne returned to Elena’s introduction to operating principles, which suggested that although the four operating principles were shared, they were supposed to be adapted to particular work tasks in the different divisions. Adapting them meant prioritizing a joint discussion of them, as was what took place at the goal coordination meeting, and, as soon as possible, integrating the principles in both annual goals for each division and employees’ individual goals. Anne asked, “How does discussing culture relate to the task of integrating the operating principles in the goals of my employees?” Again, this question made the atmosphere in the room grow tense. Elena did not answer this direct question. At this point, Jens, who had kept in the background during this heated discussion, interrupted. He argued that the introduction of operating principles in the Research division was a little “enforced” but it was nonetheless the common perception in general management that introducing the principles had a high priority. However, he also said, “Let’s see how far we get with this”, which seemed to calm the divisional director, Anne. Lars supported this suggestion to take it easy by suggesting that using the operating principles in practice could be part of the evaluation of goals in the spring. How can we make sense of this interaction as producing screens with implications for research management in Lundbeck? This is an example of a public moment of disconcertment. Although it was mainly the research manager, 259 Anne, and eventually the human resource manager, Elena, that felt disconcerted, the unsettlement that they felt spread to the other participants. I interpret the disconcertment as stemming from a collision of two screens of research that were produced by Anne and Elena. Elena’s descriptions of culture, using images of men wearing funny hats without knowing why they do so, created a screen that categorized all employees in Lundbeck as the same. The analogy she made to the cartoon provoked Anne, who experienced it as condescending. Anne, the research manager, described research as a unique practice hardly adaptable to overall ideas about culture and operating principles. Thus, her account generated a completely different screen in which research is separated from non-research. In order to understand the relation between the two contradictory screens we might backtrack a little. The head of research presents the image of trees and proposes that in order to become a healthy company, Lundbeck research activities must become more coordinated with other parts of the organization and also become more controlled. Following from this image, or screen, Elena’s introduction of operating principle makes good sense, as the operating principles are meant, and presented as, devices for creating more coordination. However, there is something about the screen that Elena produces that is highly provoking. I suggest that the image of the two men wearing hats presents an idea of coordination in which the coordination is incomprehensible. The core of the story is that the two men do not see the immediate purpose of adapting to this culture of wearing hats. This is provoking because, according to Anne, the strategy on intensifying coordination in Lundbeck does have a comprehensible purpose of stimulating better research and products, and is not only a matter of culture. Also, as we shall see, many research managers did not associate collaboration with full integration and merging into one homogenous culture. Rather they saw 260 coordination as a matter of connecting with a specific purpose, while keeping their distinct research practices intact. Thus, I used the notion of screen to explore emergent ideas about collaboration in-house. In this case, we have an encounter between researchers and nonresearchers (represented by the human resource manager). It is similar to the encounter between Lundbeck research managers and Mayo Clinic researchers because it also generates screenings of researchers and industrialists. Yet it is also quite different from that encounter since it took place in Lundbeck as an in-house discussion about strategies and operating principles. Nonetheless, in this in-house context we also find situations in which misaligned co-production takes place, a point I return to. But how did the idea of research as a unique culture relate to the emergent notion of project leaders? “The spider in the web” After this commotion, Richard gave our presentation on the project leader of the future. This involved presenting a range of implications of Synapse and the aforementioned list of skills, which future project leaders were expected to have. Surprisingly, the (to my mind) excessive list of skills did not at all perturb the group of research managers. Indeed, when asked to prioritize the listed qualities, the response was as follows: “Well, they are all important.” While I had anticipated disconcertment about an ideal image of a project leader presented on a slide that seemed dense with unsorted information, the managers did not perceive this as a problem. In fact, it seemed that to have a list was a priority that surpassed the relevance of the listed elements. In the context of coordinating goals, however, the discussion of the future project leader served a general purpose that went beyond the quality of the list. After the 261 meeting, Jens explained that putting project leaders on the agenda signified that the RMB was already developing ideas about project leaders before entering into a discussion of leadership in the broader forum of the Synapse management. By having made this specification, it was possible to enter into discussions about future requirements for project leaders with managers from the Development division that saw project management in quite different ways, as I return to. At this time, it was anticipated that Synapse would focus precisely on the role of management for improving collaboration between parts of Lundbeck. While the list of project leader competencies did not generate disconcertment as an unsorted list, it did raise questions that suggested a different screening of the role of project leaders than the multi-faceted project leader. During his presentation, Richard emphasized that, in the future, project leaders would have a crucial role in Lundbeck. Project leaders would be initiating new research projects, developing them and paving the way within the organization, and they would be coordinating with both in-house and external collaborators. He favored an image depicting the project leader as, as he said, “a spider in a web”. In this account, the spider was the project leader and the web illustrated the many relations, internal and external in which the project leader was involved. The image of a spider in a web produced a quite different idea about collaboration than the emergent relations that Hans had described in the neurocell collaboration. According to the spider in the web metaphor, a collaboration consisted of fairly stable relations (the pattern of the web), and the project leader of the collaboration had a key role (sat in the middle) in controlling these relations. In fact, Richard suggested that in external collaborations, the spider was a Lundbeck project leader that had full control of relations to the other participants in the project. All communication would go through this project leader. The counter argument, promoted by myself amongst others, was that 268 people in Development had to change their perception in order to become more aligned with research managers. In the same way that research managers saw their form of nearly academic research as a more desirable form of research than clinical research, they also saw their comparatively unrestrained form of leadership as more attractive than the controlled form of management. Since they associated leadership with their own form of research, it was difficult to discuss these differences out in the open. One episode, however, presented an opening in which to address and discuss just this difference. During one workshop in the behavior work group, a human resource manager, Hanne, presented a number of slides that described how the divisions of Research and Development had previously described the skills of different managers and leaders. These discussions had taken part separately in the respective divisions. But Hanne had produced a slide in which these role descriptions were combined. In the workshop, the slide emerged as a categorizing screen that made the differences between behaviors and leadership roles explicit, and thus made it possible to specifically address the differences between Research project leaders and Development project managers. 269 Illustration 9: The “As Is” slide illustrating the differences between Research leadership and Development management. Hanne had named the diagram “The ‘As is’”, referring to how this slide represented the way in which the two divisions presently described various roles. The diagram combined a number of project manager and leader roles – for instance, the “PM/D” referred to project managers in the development division and the “Project Leader/R” pointed to the project leaders in the research division. These roles were then combined with “essential” and “desirable” behaviors for each role, drawing on a framework for describing competencies, developed by a company. These behaviors were, for instance, “Deciding and Initiating Actions”, “Learning and Researching” and “Planning and Organizing”. There were 20 behaviors listed. For each role, research and developed managers had marked which behaviors they found either “essential” (marked by a green dot), “desirable” (marked by yellow) or “not relevant” (marked by no dot). 270 Hanne did not make much out of the slide and was already preparing to move on when Jørgen who chaired the behavior work group, asked her to wait a minute. “Aha! This is interesting!” he said. This increased the attention of the working group members who were now staring intently at the slides. Jon, a chief scientist who had been occupied with his iPad, looked up and immediately said, “Isn’t it interesting that creating and innovating isn’t seen as essential for Development managers? It’s not even marked as a desirable behavior.” The group looked at the slide. Jørgen pointed to the slide and suggested: “This might be the problem. We have quite different ideas about leadership and management.” The participating research managers, including the BCG consultant, all seemed to be uncomfortable about the slide that so obviously spelled out a difference that otherwise tended to remain tacit. However, there was also some relief that the discussion of the matter, without coming to the point, seemed to have come to an end. Rather than showing any sign of disconcertment, Tanja, a development manager, responded: “No, I disagree. I don’t see that there is a problem here”. In her view the slide illustrated perfectly both how things were and how they should be. “I do not want project leaders running around and disturbing things,” she explained. She calmly argued that in development processes “creating and innovating” was in fact not appropriate behavior. She explained that she saw research and development as two quite different things, and the slide accurately displayed this. She then argued that in development processes, management was the proper solution, since development was about “keeping things on track” and not diverging in all directions. This intervention took place during the Hanne’s presentation. Jørgen, who had initiated a discussion about the slide, seemed to accept that Tanja did not see the difference as a problem. After a moment of quietly contemplating the slide, he suggested moving on. 271 In order to interpret this discrepancy, we may note that the slide introduces a screen that defines specific relations between Research and Development, and also between leadership and management. According to the slide, research project leadership is essentially about “deciding and initiating actions”, “working with people”, “relating and networking”, “persuading and influencing”, “presenting and communicating knowledge”, “planning and organizing”, and “entrepreneurial and commercial thinking”. In contrast, according to the slide development project management is essentially about “Working with people”, “planning and organizing”, “delivering results and meeting collaborators expectations”, “entrepreneurial and commercial thinking” and “adapting and responding to change”. Chairing research manager, Jørgen, suggests that the slide visualizes a problem of collaboration because research and development projects are not managed according to the same ideas about what management should involve. To him, collaboration should evolve from a more aligned form of management style, based on the essential qualities of project leadership in research. In contrast, the development manager, Tanja, sees a different screen that categorizes Research and Development as too quite different practices that require different management. She suggests that the difference that the screen makes visual is not a problem. In her account, the diagram as screen only displays that collaboration should be based on an understanding of the important differences between research and development. Collaboration is not a matter of aligning management styles but about appreciating difference. In Lundbeck, in the context of Synapse, ideas about collaboration and leadership developed from ideas about what research implies in Lundbeck, and how it potentially connects with other (non-research) practices. As we saw at the goal coordination meeting, the increasing integration and alignment that Synapse and the new operating principles introduced made it more crucial for research 272 managers to explicate what was distinct about research. As the direct collaboration between Research and Development managers in the behavior work group illustrated, in-house collaboration was fuelled by misalignment as well as alignment. Seen as illustrative of a form of science-industry collaboration, we might notice a difference between research managers’ collaboration with external academic researchers and with in-house development managers. It seemed that where external collaboration meant becoming academic at some crucial points, in-house collaboration did not imply that research managers became development managers at some point. I propose that comparing this case of collaboration with Lundbeck’s external collaborations shows something important about science-industry collaboration. In both cases, we see instances of misaligned co-production in which collaboration develops from ideas about being different. In external collaborations the need to misalign emerges from conditions in which Lundbeck research managers are in fact very similar to their academic collaborators. However, in Lundbeck misalignment develops from being part of the same company but nonetheless resisting that this condition implies coherence and sameness. Lundbeck research is consequently screened as different in both cases, however for quite different reasons and with different outcomes. Before concluding, I briefly consider the specific outcomes of Synapse in the years 2011 to 2013. Synapse officially came to an end in 2011 and was replaced by a phase of implementation. This phase was referred to as “Synergy” in order to emphasize continued efforts to strengthen interaction between different parts of Lundbeck. But what were the outcomes of Synapse? And what ideas about integration, collaboration and research management did these outcomes reflect? I address these questions in the following section. 273 Synaptic outcomes One of the most important and tangible outcomes of Synapse Point 5.2 was an “R&D operating model”. The model was constituted by the individual recommendations that the working groups had developed, and on which the Synapse management had signed off. The model thus emerged directly from the Synapse work streams. It included a new governance model for R&D replete with new boards, management teams and guidelines for knowledge sharing. It also included guidelines for the expected behavior of board members and project leaders. In the behavior work group it became clear that defining a universal model for project leadership in Lundbeck was hardly possible or even relevant. Rather, the group’s work suggested that there were quite significant differences between project leadership and project management, corresponding to the different work tasks of the two divisions. In the Research division, project leaders were multifaceted scientists that had a key role in moving research projects forward. This involved a particular kind of reflexivity, known as “doing the right thing”, even if doing so went against normal practice and involved doing something unexpected. In the Development division, in contrast, project managers were professional managers that were organized in a Project Manager unit. Development projects were resourced with project managers from this unit, not invented by them. Rather than reinvent processes, development project managers were to keep projects “on track” by stabilizing as many factors as possible. This difference between leaders and managers was not coincidental, nor did it reflect a more advanced culture in Research. Rather, it illustrated a difference in the objectives these project leaders or managers were working with and towards. Instead of developing one general concept for managers/leaders in Lundbeck, it was eventually decided to accept the differences. The research managers accepted 274 that they should not aim to turn development managers into leaders by referring to the distinct nature of research. Focusing on the differences meant creating a joint understanding of the diverse processes of the value chain. In practice, a new project leader training program was developed and initiated. The program brought project leaders from Research and project managers from Development together in one-day meetings, during which they focused on the particular characteristics and aims of each part of the process. The intent was to create a mutual understanding based on the idea that collaboration would become much easier once the participants had a thorough understanding of the specific challenges and concerns of others. Synapse 5.2 was framed as an exercise that had the purpose of developing a closer connection between the divisions of Research and Development, and different ideas of collaboration were shaped in this context of joint project leader training. In the context of the behavior work group, some research managers proposed that creating a close connection would require developing similar approaches with an emphasis on project leadership. This similarity was not imagined to take the form of a “third” approach to management/leadership. Rather it implied that project managers from the Development division would simply adapt to the culture of research and leadership. The idea of adaptation was intriguing in this context. Research managers suggested that research was a distinct practice that did not easily adapt to general organizational principles. Nonetheless, some of the participants in the behavior work group suggested that other parts of Lundbeck might adapt to the culture of research. Collaboration, from the perspective of research managers, became equivalent to a kind of imposed alignment. In contrast, after Synapse, in the context of the new R&D project leader program, collaboration became a matter of “understanding differences” without 275 anticipating strong alignment or the merging of distinct cultures and management forms. In the context of the post-Synapse project leader program, an idea of collaboration as “understanding differences” emerged. Collaboration was defined as resulting from a process of creating increased understanding for the particular phases of developing a drug. Project leaders and managers were enrolled in a joint course in which a considerate part of the training concerned the pharmaceutical value chain, from drug discovery to sales and marketing. A divisional director from the Development division and two members of the project leader working group (Andreas, the chief scientists and Morten, the human resource manager) developed the project leader training program. It was based on the assumption that the more information the participants gained about each other’s work practices, the better they would understand each other. Eventually coordination would also become easier. I suggest that we might see this project leader training program as gradually developing a new screen for categorizing collaboration. Rather than merge and align different practices, the new screen drew on subtle classification of different work tasks and how they related to each other. The main concern was not to smooth out differences between work practices, but rather to develop mutual appreciation of those differences. I propose that, in this phase, different parts of Lundbeck were made accountable to each other while also acknowledging that collaboration did not require fusing work into one practice. We might consider this a form of intentional misaligned co-production. The project leader training program was based on an idea of co-production between Research and Development. But it was also developed from an acknowledgement of misalignment, which was different from the general operating principles and shared notions of management/leadership. In the context of the project leader training program, 276 misaligned co-production was intended and seen as a constructive approach to collaboration between research and development in Lundbeck. Conclusion This chapter has shown how various activities in Lundbeck generated screenings with implications for research, management and collaboration. First, in the context of the “Optimize External Research Collaboration” workshops, we saw a screen that differentiated external collaboration from in-house research. Then, at the coordination meeting, and in particular in the discussion of adapting to general operating principles, we saw a screen that differentiated research from non-research. Subsequently, in the behavior work group, we saw a screen that distinguished project leaders from project managers, developing a hierarchy between leaders and managers by attributing more value to leaders, and to research. Finally, in the context of the project leader training program, activities produced a screen that separated drug discovery from drug development, without simultaneously projecting this difference as a problem for future innovation. Thus we saw a number of screens. Many of these screens started out as rather crude screens that then gradually dissolved, as they were challenged by certain things often related to present practices. We see strategic research developing through screens that categorize, occlude and project. This chapter also illustrated that collaboration within Lundbeck takes place as a form of misaligned co-production in which the research manager is seen as having a particular role. This role partly resembles the notion of project leaders seen as ‘bridge builders’, as developed in both Danish research policy and policy research (See Chapters 8 and 9). In policy, project leaders are expected to connect the diverse cultures of universities and companies, and in Lundbeck project 277 leaders are in part anticipated to play an important role in connecting the domains of Research and Development. But the idea of project leaders as bridge builders in Lundbeck also differs from the notion found in policy. As we saw, there are different types of leaders and managers in Lundbeck, not all of which are seen as connecting separate practices. Despite the Synapse projection of making connections, parts of Lundbeck are not seen as completely disconnected. There is also a sense of coherence that comes from being part of one company that we do not find in policy descriptions of science-industry relations. Misaligned co-production was particularly visible in three cases. First, in the situation where research managers encountered general operating principles. In this situation, both Synapse and the introduced operating principles described coproduction. However, the research managers challenged the idea of too strong an alignment, with reference to the distinct nature of research, which produced a misalignment within co-production. Second, in the context of the behavior work group, again Synapse and point 5.2 created an anticipation of collaboration and merging. However, the development manager resisted this idea and suggested misalignment by referring to the differences between Research and Development practices. Finally, in the context of the project leader training program, coproduction was no longer seen as a matter of merging cultures, but was from the start framed as misaligned. The finding of misaligned co-production raises questions about what the main challenges of science-industry collaboration are, both between academic and industrial researchers, and within research-based companies. ‘Bridge building’ might not be the best way of understanding such collaboration since the participants might not be separate in any stable or predictable way. Thus understanding these relations, and how they are managed, remains an empirical question. I now move to the conclusion of the thesis. 284 somewhat easier to be specific about what these objects do as screens. In addition to observing what these documents do in practice situations, the materiality of them makes it possible to take them home with you, sit with them and reflect on how and what they categorize, occlude or project. In contrast, more discursive things are relatively hard to handle analytically as screens. It is more difficult to be specific about their screening qualities and often they appear interesting only as part of a particular composition of things. Again the first encounter with the Mayo Clinic serves as a good example. Here, the screen was not a document or a single expression but rather a set of circumstances. The screen was comprised by a mixture of the participants’ attitudes, by how they were arranged in the room, and by what they said and how they acted. This situation is more difficult to analyze as a screen but not less interesting. In fact, I would suggest that although the notion of screens might appear to be somewhat stretched when it is used to look at obviously discourse focused events like meetings, such events are potentially what it is most interesting to study. Indeed, looking at meetings and encounters opens up a lot of explicit articulation work related not only to describing and planning research but also to defining the participants’ engagements and roles. It is particularly interesting to examine the processes whereby screens change. For instance, I have offered examples of how researchers in Lundbeck encountered specific categorizations of them as investors or industrialists. At certain times, these categorizations were welcomed; indeed they were important for making what I referred to as misaligned co-production. But at other times, these categorizations prevented deep engagement in new research areas. Thus, I have also discussed how Lundbeck researchers attempted to change categorizing screens by acting or talking in a way that stimulated different forms of 285 classification. Indeed, we have come across some very active forms of screen change such as the adoption of cultural codes, like putting on a creased shirt or asking technical questions when in the company of academics. This goes to show that screens are not always passively accepted but that people engage in activities to change them. Strengths and weaknesses of the notion of screens The main strength of the concept of screens is its conceptual flexibility. This has allowed me to conceive science-industry collaboration in a new way. Thus, focusing on screens has allowed me to consider the simultaneous co-production of sameness and difference in science-industry collaboration. In particular, screens offered a framework for exploring constructions of relations, without in advance setting up expectations of finding either sameness or difference. My intent was thus to avoid both the prevalent idea that science and industry are separate domains and the opposite, that such collaborations either presume or create similarity. The analytical tool of screens thus offered a flexible way of rethinking the dynamics of science-industry collaboration by characterizing how various constructions make collaboration possible. This flexibility made the analytical framework of screens adaptable to my empirical context but potentially it also makes it transferable to other contexts. Although I have emphasized categorizing, occluding and projecting screens, in other contexts different screens may be relevant, and the ones I have identified less so. My main point is simply that the framework of screens is itself potentially flexible and adaptable to diverse contexts. However, this flexibility is also, as I see it, the central potential weakness of this analytical tool. Thus it might be objected that the very flexibility of screens is a 286 consequence of not using the concept with sufficient clarity, precision and consistency. In future research, I therefore believe it will be both interesting and valuable to explore more specific aspects of screens. This might, for instance, entail looking at specific objects in terms of particular screens. This could be done by studying collaboration contracts only, and in detail, as categorizing screens. It might also entail studying the analytical phenomenon of intentional screen change, as described above. In this sense, narrowing and specifying its analytical and empirical areas of application may enhance the concept of screens. In this thesis, however, my main purpose was to develop and test the framework of screens and to see what new insights this might give in terms of understanding strategic research, science-industry collaboration and research management. Disconcertment Disconcertment was one of the central methodological tools with which I have explored strategic research in Lundbeck. Disconcertment was used as a device for selecting particular cases and situations for analysis. It has also worked as an organizing tool that has given certain events and accounts a prominent role in the thesis. Hence, the thesis has offered more accounts of surprising or unusual situations than descriptions of what researchers do when they normally do research in Lundbeck. As part of this process, I have identified different forms of disconcertment. First, there is the researchers’ disconcertment, which is what Verran encourages us to take seriously (Verran 2001). The researcher encounters surprising things in the field though they are not necessarily surprising to people in the field. Second, I have pointed to public forms of disconcertment in which the researcher and people in the field share a moment of disconcertment. After the event, there might 287 be different interpretations of what caused the disconcertment but this form of disconcertment is characterized by a shared sense that something was wrong. Finally, I have identified a third form of disconcertment, which took the form of people in the field retelling stories about past disconcerting events. This is neither the researcher’s disconcertment nor a shared form of disconcertment. The critical moment of disconcertment has passed (it might even be years ago) but it is still vividly recalled because it illustrated something important about what went on in a particular situation. Disconcertment is an interesting methodological tool because it addresses situations where things are out of order. Exploring these moments thus gives us a key to understanding what that order is assumed to be. For instance, in the case of the Mayo Clinic, I would not have been able to see that there was something wrong with the meeting situation unless the participants that I later interviewed had described their disconcertment. Indeed, it seemed perfectly reasonable to expect that research managers from Lundbeck would be interested in presentations of ongoing research at the Mayo Clinic. Yet, exploring this recalled disconcertment revealed that the Lundbeck research managers at this particular point in the collaboration did not see themselves as investors but in fact as researchers. To make the collaboration possible, it was crucial to change this perception. Thus, disconcertment works as a tool for exploring practices and embedded assumptions through the unusual. As a tool, disconcertment can be used in the three ways identified in the thesis: developing sensitivity to one’s own disconcertment, to public shared disconcertment and to informants’ reflections on past disconcerting moments. For future research it appears to me particularly promising to further explore the following question: What makes ‘a good case’ for exploring disconcertment? First, it seems that using disconcertment requires getting quite close to what one 288 studies. Being invited to explore situations where things are in the making, uncertain, or already gone wrong requires establishing some kind of trust that it takes time to build. In my case, being employed at Lundbeck made this easier but still it required engaging actively in the field over a long period of time. Second, there are potentially many disconcerting things to analyze. Sorting out which disconcerting things say something specifically important about the research topic requires familiarity with the field. Thus disconcertment seems to require longitudinal ethnographic studies. It seems to me that the public shared forms are highly interesting and strong cases of disconcertment. Again the meeting between Lundbeck and the Mayo Clinic researchers illustrates this. Here a large group of participants argued that something was wrong in this meeting. Though they gave quite different explanations of what was wrong the fact that they all pointed to the event as unusual made it seem of obvious interest. In contrast, it seemed less useful to explore in depth the disconcertment that a single research manager expressed about the Synapse process. Rather than suggesting something generally significant about science-industry collaboration, this disconcertment could, in hindsight, just as well say something particular about this research manager’s uncertainty about particular processes of change. Thus, I propose that studying disconcertment is particularly relevant when the empirical material allows exploring more public and collective forms of disconcertment. These public forms potentially reveal more important aspects of the phenomenon of strategic research as a collective practice than more private forms of disconcertment. 289 Implications for future academic work The thesis contributes to studies of science-industry collaboration, both in STS and in the field of research policy. Centrally, I have argued that since many analytical frameworks are based on the presumption that the main challenge of such collaboration is to overcome difference, careful analysis of what such difference actually consists in, is very important. The thesis has given some inputs to what characterizes such collaborative difference. It has shown that in many situations there are already overlaps and coinciding interests, so that making difference between the aims and roles of the participants is in fact what organizes and constitutes collaboration. This insight offers a further set of opportunities for future research. The thesis has drawn on a number of concepts developed in studies of scientific collaboration within universities among academic researchers from diverse disciplines (for instance, Galison 1996). These studies describe not so much science-industry differences as differences between disciplines and between scientific cultures. An interesting question for future research would consequently be: What might such studies of scientific collaboration learn from studies of science-industry collaboration? Do the participants in scientific collaborations also actively differentiate themselves from each other? Might we even find situations where disciplinary affiliation does not matter much and where other forms of sameness and differentiation become more important? The thesis also offers insight into research management. As we have seen, what characterizes research management is related to how research and collaboration are screened. If strategic research develops from emergent relations, and if science and industry are not clearly separate domains, the management of research is not mainly a matter of ‘bridge building’. Rather, managing research becomes a question of dealing with risk, uncertainty and unstable relationships, 290 and about making important links and differentiations. For future research, it would be interesting to explore the management of research in terms of such ‘adaptive frameworks’ and their requirements (Vedel et al. 2013). Although we developed this term in the context of dissemination to practitioners, it might also be interesting for the academic study of research management, not simply, that is, as an administrative management practice but as a creative practice for integrating research content and context. Implications for practitioners From the outset this thesis had the ambition not only of speaking to academic concerns but also to those of practitioners. In this endeavor, I think of this thesis as a form of interventionist and “serviceable STS” (Webster 2007: 459) that aims at not only “deconstructing” but also “shaping” policies (ibid. 462-463). Andrew Webster suggests that there are several “intervention spaces” for STS research, among these ‘the characterization and anticipation of emerging technoscience fields’, ‘the exploitation of (future) technoscience’, and ‘the context of use of technoscience applications’ (ibid. 462). I would add to these a new intervention space that might be called: ‘basic assumptions about strategic research and science-industry collaboration’. Within this intervention space, the thesis has practical implications for both policy makers and research managers. Implications for research managers For practitioners, one of the main outcomes of this thesis is the paper “Externalizing research through adaptive frameworks”. The paper addresses a practitioner audience (readers of Nature Review Drug Discovery), it was coauthored with a practitioner and it offers recommendations for how to work with 291 adaptive frameworks. These recommendations draw attention to what an adaptive framework approach implies. It implies developing more flexible ideas about what collaboration is (beyond “cash and carry”) and specific contractual frameworks based on these. The notion of adaptive frameworks addresses the practical challenges of managing strategic research and science-industry collaborations. As we have seen, these relate to an inbuilt tension in managing strategic research. On the one hand, managing strategic research implies stabilizing certain research by arguing for its potential relevance and value. On the other hand, it implies openness and allowing the research to destabilize these initial conceptions of relevance and value. Thus in practice managing strategic research means arguing for the value and potential of research one minute and allowing plans and frameworks to change in the next. In relation to developing contractual frameworks deploying an adaptive framework approach implies careful interrogation of what needs to be settled in advance and what might be left open in science-industry collaboration. For instance, while intellectual property rights and financial arrangements might have to be settled up-front, scientific content might be allowed for to develop in the course of the collaboration. Of course, this does not leave everything open, since content develops in relation to certain defined ambitions and questions. But how these ambitions and questions are left rather open and settled in the process. We also draw attention to the fact that although developing an adaptive framework approach might seem easy it nonetheless entails considerable organizational challenge. It requires that research managers have both technical skills and experience with research. In addition, communicating an adaptive framework approach to the organization might be quite hard, since it is premised on an in-built and productive tension between stabilizing things and keeping 292 them open. It is particularly challenging when this approach meets other organizational frameworks that aim at settling things. In Lundbeck, this was illustrated not least by the research managers’ general skepticism about “bringing in the lawyers” to solve collaboration problems. In any case, it would be interesting to develop the notion of adaptive frameworks further, especially in terms of generating even more specific recommendations for an audience of practitioners. Implications for policy makers Finally, let me consider the implications of my findings for policy. In recent years, a particular form of strategic research has emerged as increasingly important in Danish research policy. New strategies and an ongoing reorganization of the Danish research advisory and funding system have put increasing emphasis on treating strategic research on its own terms and developing it in terms of demand-driven innovation. This suggests that strategic research continues to be seen as separate from basic (“free”) research and based on quite specific requests articulated by politicians and companies. It is based on the assumption that it is possible to predict future societal and industrial needs for research and shape public research funding processes accordingly. This thesis has developed quite a different account of strategic research. Where strategic research in contemporary Danish policy debates is seen as a predictable, valuable, and goal-oriented form of research, this thesis has offered a description of strategic research in which direction and value, at least to some extent, develop in the process of collaboration. These findings might stimulate a more careful discussion about what strategic research is, what makes research strategic valuable, and how companies in fact identify their needs and strategies. 293 In relation to this, it is central to emphasize that the outcomes of strategicexplorative research are not potentially less useful or less relevant than outcomes of a more restricted form of strategic research. Indeed, the opposite might well be the case, as strategic-explorative research (built on adaptive frameworks) implies an inbuilt alertness to potentially useful and relevant opportunities that are not predictable in advance. Thus we might not think of strategic-explorative research as potentially less capable of addressing societal or industrial problems but in fact as a more reflexive and relevant approach to both identifying and working with such problems. In this regard, one particular concern relates to the kind of research projects that might receive funding within a public policy framework of strategic research based on demand-driven innovation. Compared to a private corporate context, where research projects can be initiated and ended with flexibility there is a different accountability related to public research funding. There is a demand for receiving a coherent case for research rather than mainly elucidated opportunities. However, even if we take this difference into account, we might imagine the emphasis on demand-driven innovation would imply prioritizing projects that clearly address a demand, anticipate a solution and define crucial steps to reach this end. Consequently, we might also imagine that research projects that describe a direction but otherwise leave the research process more open will have more difficulty in receiving funding. This development of strategic research is problematic because it overlooks a great strategic potential in research in the attempt of controlling it. Another issue is how funded public funding agencies will manage and approach funded strategic research projects. To what extent are the receivers of research funds accountable within predefined research agendas? To stimulate discussion on these questions, adaptive frameworks might again be useful, also in this policy 300 17. APPENDIX C: LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: The linear organization of the Danish public research advisory and funding system (Regeringen 2012). ........................................................ 27 Illustration 2: The entrance to Lundbeck headquarters and the building housing general management (picture taken from the North Gate, Autumn 2013). 38 Illustration 3: The main street crossing through Lundbeck headquarters. The yellow building at the center of the picture houses Molecular Neurobiology/Drug Discovery (picture taken from the management building in Summer 2013). ............................................................................................ 40 Illustration 4: The linear organization of the Danish public research advisory and funding system (Regeringen 2012) ......................................................... 77 Illustration 5: Donald Stokes’ model of Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes 1997). 81 Illustration 6: Lundbeck’s Product concept model. ................................ 210 Illustration 7: The tree metaphor of Lundbeck’s development. ....... 254 Illustration 8: The cartoon illustration of corporate culture. ............. 256 Illustration 9: The “As Is” slide illustrating the differences between Research leadership and Development management. ...................................... 269 301 18. APPENDIX D: LIST OF KEY PEOPLE/PSEUDONYMS Pseudonym Age Position Lundbeck Jens 55 Head of research/senior research manager Lars 50 Head of drug discovery (DK) Jørgen 65 Head of the behavior working group Hans 50 Divisional director Anne 45 Divisional director Niels 45 Divisional director Trine 40 Department manager Jesper 45 Head of section/research manager Thomas 45 Head of section/research manager Andreas 45 Chief scientist/chemist Morten 40 Human resource manager Tanja 45 Development manager Hanne 55 Human resource manager Birgitte 45 Divisional director, Development Richard 50 Head of drug discovery (US) Jonathan – Jon 45 Chief scientist/chemist (US) Elena 50 Human resource manager (US) William – Will 40 Business developer (US) Irene 55 Divisional director (US) The neurocell collaboration Martin 50 Researcher at a university/co-founder of PsychoIndex Søren 55 Researcher at a university Henrik 50 Co-founder of PsychoIndex 302 The Mayo Clinic Adam 55 Department manager Geraldo – Jerry 45 Principal investigator Laura 40 Principal investigator David - Dave 45 Principal investigator Nancy 50 Licensing manager Margaret 50 Technology development liaison officer 303 19. REFERENCES ATV (2012). Det værdiskabende universitet. København. Baba, Y., N. Shichijob, et al. (2009). “How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “Pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field.” Research Policy 38(5): 756-764. Biagioli, M. (2003). Rights or Rewards. Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship. Scientific Authorship. M. Biagioli and P. Galison. London and New York, Routledge: 253-280. Boltanski, L. and L. Thévenot (2006). On Justification. Economies of Worth. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bowker, G. C. and S. L. Star (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, MIT Press. Bruneel, J., P. D'Este, et al. (2010). “Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration.” Research Policy 39(7): 858-868. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier, ACLS. Casas, R., R. d. Gortari, et al. (2000). “The building of knowledge spaces in Mexico: a regional approach to networking.” Research Policy 29(2): 225-241. Collins, H. (1985). Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. 304 Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Daston, L., Ed. (2000). Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago, Chicago University Press. Deleuze, G. (1993). The Fold. London and New York, Continuum. DFF (2013). Opslag E2012 og F2013. København, DFF. DSF (2013). Strategisk forskning. Principper og virkemidler. København, Styrelsen for Forskning og Innovation. du Gay, P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy. Weber, Organization, Ethics, SAGE. Emmeche, C. and J. Faye, Eds. (2010). Hvad er forskning? Frederiksberg, Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne. Estabrooks, C. A., P. Norton, et al. (2008). “Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers.” Research Policy 37(6-7): 1066-1078. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000). “The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry– government relations.” Research Policy 29(2): 109-123. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, et al. (2000). “The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm.” 305 Research Policy 29(2): 313-330. Felt, U., D. Barben, et al. (2013). Science in Society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. ESF Science Policy Briefing. Strasbourg, European Science Foundation. FIVU (2009). Evaluering af forskningsrådssystemet i Danmark. København. Freitas, I. M. B., A. Geuna, et al. (2013). “Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university-industry interactions.” Research Policy 42(1): 50-62. Freud, S. (1899). “Screen memories.” Standard edition 3: 301-322. Fuentes, C. D. and G. Dutrénit (2012). “Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit.” Research Policy 41(9): 1666-1682. Fujimura, J. (1987). “Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment.” Social Studies of Science 17(2): 257-93. Fujimura, J. (1996). Crafting Science. A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic. A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press. Galison, P. and D. J. Stump, Eds. (1996). The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, 306 Contexts and Power. Writing Science. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Garud, R., J. Gehman, et al. (2013). “Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate.” Research Policy (In Press). Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Los Angeles, Sage. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press. Giesecke, S. (2000). “The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany.” Research Policy 29(2): 205–223. Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1983). Ethnography. London and New York, Routledge. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_ OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York - London, Routledge. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, Routledge. Irwin, A. and M. Michael (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Berkshire, Open University Press. Irwin, A. and B. Wynne, Eds. (1996). Misunderstanding Science? The public 307 reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Jasanoff, S., Ed. (2004). States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London and New York, Routledge. Jensen, C. B. (2005). “An Experiment in Performative History: Electronic Patient Records as a Future-Generating Device.” Social Studies of Science 35(2): 241–267. Jensen, C. B. (2007). “Sorting Attachments: Usefulness of STS in Health Care Practice and Policy.” Science as Culture 16(3): 237-253. Jensen, C. B. (2011). “Making Lists, Enlisting Scientists: The Bibliometric Indicator, Uncertainty and Emergent Agency.” Science Studies 24(2): 64-84. Jones-Evans, D., M. Klofsten, et al. (1999). “Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office.” R&D Management 29(1): 47–56. Kleinman, D. L. and S. P. Vallas (2006). Contradiction in Convergence: Universities and Industry in the Biotechnology Field. The New Political Sociology of Science. Institutions, Networks, and Power. S. Frickel and K. Moore. Madison, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press: 35-62. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. 308 Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Kotha, R., G. George, et al. (2013). “Bridging the mutual knowledge gap: Coordination and the commercialization of university science.” Academy of Management Journal 56(2): 498-524. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. K. K. Cetina and M. Mulkay. London and Beverly Hills, SAGE. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England, Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2004). “Why has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30(2): 25-48. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1979). Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press. 309 Law, J. and W.-y. Lin (2011). “Cultivating disconcertment.” The sociological review 58(2): 135-153. Leydesdorff, L. and H. Etzkowitz (1996). “Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-governance relations.” Science and Public Policy 23(5): 279286. Luna, M. and J. L. Velasco (2003). “Bridging the gap between firms and academic institutions.” Industry & Higher Education 17(5): 313-323. Maurer, B. (2005). Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press. Ministeriet for Videnskab, T. o. U. (2003a). Forslag til lov om forskningsrådgivning m.v. 2002/1 LSF 142. T. o. U. Ministeriet for Videnskab, Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. Ministeriet for Videnskab, T. o. U. (2003b). Bemærkninger til lovforslaget (Forslag om Lov om forskningsrådgivning m.v.). 2002/1 LSF 142. T. o. U. Ministeriet for Videnskab. Ministeriet for Videnskab, T. o. U. (2010a). Bekendtgørelse om bevillingsfunktionen m.v. under Det Frie Forskningsråd og Det Strategiske Forskningsråd. BEK nr 1620 af 15/12/2010. T. o. U. Ministeriet for Videnskab. 19. Thomas Lyse Hansen Six Essays on Pricing and Weather risk in Energy Markets 20. Sabine Madsen Emerging Methods – An Interpretive Study of ISD Methods in Practice 21. Evis Sinani The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Efficiency, Productivity Growth and Trade: An Empirical Investigation 22. Bent Meier Sørensen Making Events Work Or, How to Multiply Your Crisis 23. Pernille Schnoor Brand Ethos Om troværdige brandog virksomhedsidentiteter i et retorisk og diskursteoretisk perspektiv 24. Sidsel Fabech Von welchem Österreich ist hier die Rede? Diskursive forhandlinger og magtkampe mellem rivaliserende nationale identitetskonstruktioner i østrigske pressediskurser 25. Klavs Odgaard Christensen Sprogpolitik og identitetsdannelse i flersprogede forbundsstater Et komparativt studie af Schweiz og Canada 26. Dana B. Minbaeva Human Resource Practices and Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations 27. Holger Højlund Markedets politiske fornuft Et studie af velfærdens organisering i perioden 1990-2003 28. Christine Mølgaard Frandsen A.s erfaring Om mellemværendets praktik i en transformation af mennesket og subjektiviteten 29. Sine Nørholm Just The Constitution of Meaning – A Meaningful Constitution? Legitimacy, identity, and public opinion in the debate on the future of Europe 2005 1. Claus J. Varnes Managing product innovation through rules – The role of formal and structured methods in product development 2. Helle Hedegaard Hein Mellem konflikt og konsensus – Dialogudvikling på hospitalsklinikker 3. Axel Rosenø Customer Value Driven Product Innovation – A Study of Market Learning in New Product Development 4. Søren Buhl Pedersen Making space An outline of place branding 5. Camilla Funck Ellehave Differences that Matter An analysis of practices of gender and organizing in contemporary workplaces 6. Rigmor Madeleine Lond Styring af kommunale forvaltninger 7. Mette Aagaard Andreassen Supply Chain versus Supply Chain Benchmarking as a Means to Managing Supply Chains 8. Caroline Aggestam-Pontoppidan From an idea to a standard The UN and the global governance of accountants’ competence 9. Norsk ph.d. 10. Vivienne Heng Ker-ni An Experimental Field Study on the Effectiveness of Grocer Media Advertising Measuring Ad Recall and Recognition, Purchase Intentions and Short-Term Sales 11. Allan Mortensen Essays on the Pricing of Corporate Bonds and Credit Derivatives 12. Remo Stefano Chiari Figure che fanno conoscere Itinerario sull’idea del valore cognitivo e espressivo della metafora e di altri tropi da Aristotele e da Vico fino al cognitivismo contemporaneo 13. Anders McIlquham-Schmidt Strategic Planning and Corporate Performance An integrative research review and a meta-analysis of the strategic planning and corporate performance literature from 1956 to 2003 14. Jens Geersbro The TDF – PMI Case Making Sense of the Dynamics of Business Relationships and Networks 15 Mette Andersen Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains Understanding the uniqueness of firm behaviour 16. Eva Boxenbaum Institutional Genesis: Micro – Dynamic Foundations of Institutional Change 17. Peter Lund-Thomsen Capacity Development, Environmental Justice NGOs, and Governance: The Case of South Africa 18. Signe Jarlov Konstruktioner af offentlig ledelse 19. Lars Stæhr Jensen Vocabulary Knowledge and Listening Comprehension in English as a Foreign Language An empirical study employing data elicited from Danish EFL learners 20. Christian Nielsen Essays on Business Reporting Production and consumption of strategic information in the market for information 21. Marianne Thejls Fischer Egos and Ethics of Management Consultants 22. Annie Bekke Kjær Performance management i Procesinnovation – belyst i et social-konstruktivistisk perspektiv 23. Suzanne Dee Pedersen GENTAGELSENS METAMORFOSE Om organisering af den kreative gøren i den kunstneriske arbejdspraksis 24. Benedikte Dorte Rosenbrink Revenue Management Økonomiske, konkurrencemæssige & organisatoriske konsekvenser 25. Thomas Riise Johansen Written Accounts and Verbal Accounts The Danish Case of Accounting and Accountability to Employees 26. Ann Fogelgren-Pedersen The Mobile Internet: Pioneering Users’ Adoption Decisions 27. Birgitte Rasmussen Ledelse i fællesskab – de tillidsvalgtes fornyende rolle 28. Gitte Thit Nielsen Remerger – skabende ledelseskræfter i fusion og opkøb 29. Carmine Gioia A MICROECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS 30. Ole Hinz Den effektive forandringsleder: pilot, pædagog eller politiker? Et studie i arbejdslederes meningstilskrivninger i forbindelse med vellykket gennemførelse af ledelsesinitierede forandringsprojekter 31. Kjell-Åge Gotvassli Et praksisbasert perspektiv på dynamiske læringsnettverk i toppidretten Norsk ph.d., ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 32. Henriette Langstrup Nielsen Linking Healthcare An inquiry into the changing performances of web-based technology for asthma monitoring 33. Karin Tweddell Levinsen Virtuel Uddannelsespraksis Master i IKT og Læring – et casestudie i hvordan proaktiv proceshåndtering kan forbedre praksis i virtuelle læringsmiljøer 34. Anika Liversage Finding a Path Labour Market Life Stories of Immigrant Professionals 35. Kasper Elmquist Jørgensen Studier i samspillet mellem stat og erhvervsliv i Danmark under 1. verdenskrig 36. Finn Janning A DIFFERENT STORY Seduction, Conquest and Discovery 37. Patricia Ann Plackett Strategic Management of the Radical Innovation Process Leveraging Social Capital for Market Uncertainty Management 2006 1. Christian Vintergaard Early Phases of Corporate Venturing 2. Niels Rom-Poulsen Essays in Computational Finance 3. Tina Brandt Husman Organisational Capabilities, Competitive Advantage & ProjectBased Organisations The Case of Advertising and Creative Good Production 4. Mette Rosenkrands Johansen Practice at the top – how top managers mobilise and use non-financial performance measures 5. Eva Parum Corporate governance som strategisk kommunikationsog ledelsesværktøj 6. Susan Aagaard Petersen Culture’s Influence on Performance Management: The Case of a Danish Company in China 7. Thomas Nicolai Pedersen The Discursive Constitution of Organizational Governance – Between unity and differentiation The Case of the governance of environmental risks by World Bank environmental staff 8. Cynthia Selin Volatile Visions: Transactons in Anticipatory Knowledge 9. Jesper Banghøj Financial Accounting Information and Compensation in Danish Companies 10. Mikkel Lucas Overby Strategic Alliances in Emerging HighTech Markets: What’s the Difference and does it Matter? 11. Tine Aage External Information Acquisition of Industrial Districts and the Impact of Different Knowledge Creation Dimensions A case study of the Fashion and Design Branch of the Industrial District of Montebelluna, NE Italy 12. Mikkel Flyverbom Making the Global Information Society Governable On the Governmentality of MultiStakeholder Networks 13. Anette Grønning Personen bag Tilstedevær i e-mail som interaktionsform mellem kunde og medarbejder i dansk forsikringskontekst 14. Jørn Helder One Company – One Language? The NN-case 15. Lars Bjerregaard Mikkelsen Differing perceptions of customer value Development and application of a tool for mapping perceptions of customer value at both ends of customer-supplier dyads in industrial markets 16. Lise Granerud Exploring Learning Technological learning within small manufacturers in South Africa 17. Esben Rahbek Pedersen Between Hopes and Realities: Reflections on the Promises and Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 18. Ramona Samson The Cultural Integration Model and European Transformation. The Case of Romania 2007 1. Jakob Vestergaard Discipline in The Global Economy Panopticism and the Post-Washington Consensus 2. Heidi Lund Hansen Spaces for learning and working A qualitative study of change of work, management, vehicles of power and social practices in open offices 3. Sudhanshu Rai Exploring the internal dynamics of software development teams during user analysis A tension enabled Institutionalization Model; ”Where process becomes the objective” 4. Norsk ph.d. Ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 5. Serden Ozcan EXPLORING HETEROGENEITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS AND OUTCOMES A Behavioural Perspective 6. Kim Sundtoft Hald Inter-organizational Performance Measurement and Management in Action – An Ethnography on the Construction of Management, Identity and Relationships 7. Tobias Lindeberg Evaluative Technologies Quality and the Multiplicity of Performance 8. Merete Wedell-Wedellsborg Den globale soldat Identitetsdannelse og identitetsledelse i multinationale militære organisationer 9. Lars Frederiksen Open Innovation Business Models Innovation in firm-hosted online user communities and inter-firm project ventures in the music industry – A collection of essays 10. Jonas Gabrielsen Retorisk toposlære – fra statisk ’sted’ til persuasiv aktivitet 11. Christian Moldt-Jørgensen Fra meningsløs til meningsfuld evaluering. Anvendelsen af studentertilfredshedsmålinger på de korte og mellemlange videregående uddannelser set fra et psykodynamisk systemperspektiv 12. Ping Gao Extending the application of actor-network theory Cases of innovation in the telecommunications industry 13. Peter Mejlby Frihed og fængsel, en del af den samme drøm? Et phronetisk baseret casestudie af frigørelsens og kontrollens sameksistens i værdibaseret ledelse! 14. Kristina Birch Statistical Modelling in Marketing 15. Signe Poulsen Sense and sensibility: The language of emotional appeals in insurance marketing 16. Anders Bjerre Trolle Essays on derivatives pricing and dynamic asset allocation 17. Peter Feldhütter Empirical Studies of Bond and Credit Markets 18. Jens Henrik Eggert Christensen Default and Recovery Risk Modeling and Estimation 19. Maria Theresa Larsen Academic Enterprise: A New Mission for Universities or a Contradiction in Terms? Four papers on the long-term implications of increasing industry involvement and commercialization in academia 20. Morten Wellendorf Postimplementering af teknologi i den offentlige forvaltning Analyser af en organisations kontinuerlige arbejde med informationsteknologi 21. Ekaterina Mhaanna Concept Relations for Terminological Process Analysis 22. Stefan Ring Thorbjørnsen Forsvaret i forandring Et studie i officerers kapabiliteter under påvirkning af omverdenens forandringspres mod øget styring og læring 23. Christa Breum Amhøj Det selvskabte medlemskab om managementstaten, dens styringsteknologier og indbyggere 24. Karoline Bromose Between Technological Turbulence and Operational Stability – An empirical case study of corporate venturing in TDC 25. Susanne Justesen Navigating the Paradoxes of Diversity in Innovation Practice – A Longitudinal study of six very different innovation processes – in practice 26. Luise Noring Henler Conceptualising successful supply chain partnerships – Viewing supply chain partnerships from an organisational culture perspective 27. Mark Mau Kampen om telefonen Det danske telefonvæsen under den tyske besættelse 1940-45 28. Jakob Halskov The semiautomatic expansion of existing terminological ontologies using knowledge patterns discovered on the WWW – an implementation and evaluation 29. Gergana Koleva European Policy Instruments Beyond Networks and Structure: The Innovative Medicines Initiative 30. Christian Geisler Asmussen Global Strategy and International Diversity: A Double-Edged Sword? 31. Christina Holm-Petersen Stolthed og fordom Kulturog identitetsarbejde ved skabelsen af en ny sengeafdeling gennem fusion 32. Hans Peter Olsen Hybrid Governance of Standardized States Causes and Contours of the Global Regulation of Government Auditing 33. Lars Bøge Sørensen Risk Management in the Supply Chain 34. Peter Aagaard Det unikkes dynamikker De institutionelle mulighedsbetingelser bag den individuelle udforskning i professionelt og frivilligt arbejde 35. Yun Mi Antorini Brand Community Innovation An Intrinsic Case Study of the Adult Fans of LEGO Community 36. Joachim Lynggaard Boll Labor Related Corporate Social Performance in Denmark Organizational and Institutional Perspectives 2008 1. Frederik Christian Vinten Essays on Private Equity 2. Jesper Clement Visual Influence of Packaging Design on In-Store Buying Decisions 3. Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard Tid til kvalitetsmåling? – Studier af indrulleringsprocesser i forbindelse med introduktionen af kliniske kvalitetsdatabaser i speciallægepraksissektoren 4. Irene Skovgaard Smith Management Consulting in Action Value creation and ambiguity in client-consultant relations 5. Anders Rom Management accounting and integrated information systems How to exploit the potential for management accounting of information technology 6. Marina Candi Aesthetic Design as an Element of Service Innovation in New Technologybased Firms 7. Morten Schnack Teknologi og tværfaglighed – en analyse af diskussionen omkring indførelse af EPJ på en hospitalsafdeling 8. Helene Balslev Clausen Juntos pero no revueltos – un estudio sobre emigrantes norteamericanos en un pueblo mexicano 9. Lise Justesen Kunsten at skrive revisionsrapporter. En beretning om forvaltningsrevisionens beretninger 10. Michael E. Hansen The politics of corporate responsibility: CSR and the governance of child labor and core labor rights in the 1990s 11. Anne Roepstorff Holdning for handling – en etnologisk undersøgelse af Virksomheders Sociale Ansvar/CSR 12. Claus Bajlum Essays on Credit Risk and Credit Derivatives 13. Anders Bojesen The Performative Power of Competence – an Inquiry into Subjectivity and Social Technologies at Work 14. Satu Reijonen Green and Fragile A Study on Markets and the Natural Environment 15. Ilduara Busta Corporate Governance in Banking A European Study 16. Kristian Anders Hvass A Boolean Analysis Predicting Industry Change: Innovation, Imitation & Business Models The Winning Hybrid: A case study of isomorphism in the airline industry 17. Trine Paludan De uvidende og de udviklingsparate Identitet som mulighed og restriktion blandt fabriksarbejdere på det aftayloriserede fabriksgulv 18. Kristian Jakobsen Foreign market entry in transition economies: Entry timing and mode choice 19. Jakob Elming Syntactic reordering in statistical machine translation 20. Lars Brømsøe Termansen Regional Computable General Equilibrium Models for Denmark Three papers laying the foundation for regional CGE models with agglomeration characteristics 21. Mia Reinholt The Motivational Foundations of Knowledge Sharing 22. Frederikke Krogh-Meibom The Co-Evolution of Institutions and Technology – A Neo-Institutional Understanding of Change Processes within the Business Press – the Case Study of Financial Times 23. Peter D. Ørberg Jensen OFFSHORING OF ADVANCED AND HIGH-VALUE TECHNICAL SERVICES: ANTECEDENTS, PROCESS DYNAMICS AND FIRMLEVEL IMPACTS 24. Pham Thi Song Hanh Functional Upgrading, Relational Capability and Export Performance of Vietnamese Wood Furniture Producers 25. Mads Vangkilde Why wait? An Exploration of first-mover advantages among Danish e-grocers through a resource perspective 26. Hubert Buch-Hansen Rethinking the History of European Level Merger Control A Critical Political Economy Perspective 2009 1. Vivian Lindhardsen From Independent Ratings to Communal Ratings: A Study of CWA Raters’ Decision-Making Behaviours 2. Guðrið Weihe Public-Private Partnerships: Meaning and Practice 3. Chris Nøkkentved Enabling Supply Networks with Collaborative Information Infrastructures An Empirical Investigation of Business Model Innovation in Supplier Relationship Management 4. Sara Louise Muhr Wound, Interrupted – On the Vulnerability of Diversity Management 5. Christine Sestoft Forbrugeradfærd i et Statsog Livsformsteoretisk perspektiv 6. Michael Pedersen Tune in, Breakdown, and Reboot: On the production of the stress-fit selfmanaging employee 7. Salla Lutz Position and Reposition in Networks – Exemplified by the Transformation of the Danish Pine Furniture Manufacturers 8. Jens Forssbæck Essays on market discipline in commercial and central banking 9. Tine Murphy Sense from Silence – A Basis for Organised Action How do Sensemaking Processes with Minimal Sharing Relate to the Reproduction of Organised Action? 10. Sara Malou Strandvad Inspirations for a new sociology of art: A sociomaterial study of development processes in the Danish film industry 11. Nicolaas Mouton On the evolution of social scientific metaphors: A cognitive-historical enquiry into the divergent trajectories of the idea that collective entities – states and societies, cities and corporations – are biological organisms. 12. Lars Andreas Knutsen Mobile Data Services: Shaping of user engagements 13. Nikolaos Theodoros Korfiatis Information Exchange and Behavior A Multi-method Inquiry on Online Communities 14. Jens Albæk Forestillinger om kvalitet og tværfaglighed på sygehuse – skabelse af forestillinger i lægeog plejegrupperne angående relevans af nye idéer om kvalitetsudvikling gennem tolkningsprocesser 15. Maja Lotz The Business of Co-Creation – and the Co-Creation of Business 16. Gitte P. Jakobsen Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context 17. Dorte Hermansen ”Living the brand” som en brandorienteret dialogisk praxis: Om udvikling af medarbejdernes brandorienterede dømmekraft 18. Aseem Kinra Supply Chain (logistics) Environmental Complexity 19. Michael Nørager How to manage SMEs through the transformation from non innovative to innovative? 20. Kristin Wallevik Corporate Governance in Family Firms The Norwegian Maritime Sector 21. Bo Hansen Hansen Beyond the Process Enriching Software Process Improvement with Knowledge Management 22. Annemette Skot-Hansen Franske adjektivisk afledte adverbier, der tager præpositionssyntagmer indledt med præpositionen à som argumenter En valensgrammatisk undersøgelse 23. Line Gry Knudsen Collaborative R&D Capabilities In Search of Micro-Foundations 24. Christian Scheuer Employers meet employees Essays on sorting and globalization 25. Rasmus Johnsen The Great Health of Melancholy A Study of the Pathologies of Performativity 26. Ha Thi Van Pham Internationalization, Competitiveness Enhancement and Export Performance of Emerging Market Firms: Evidence from Vietnam 27. Henriette Balieu Kontrolbegrebets betydning for kausativalternationen i spansk En kognitiv-typologisk analyse 2010 1. Yen Tran Organizing Innovationin Turbulent Fashion Market Four papers on how fashion firms create and appropriate innovation value 2. Anders Raastrup Kristensen Metaphysical Labour Flexibility, Performance and Commitment in Work-Life Management 3. Margrét Sigrún Sigurdardottir Dependently independent Co-existence of institutional logics in the recorded music industry 4. Ásta Dis Óladóttir Internationalization from a small domestic base: An empirical analysis of Economics and Management 5. Christine Secher E-deltagelse i praksis – politikernes og forvaltningens medkonstruktion og konsekvenserne heraf 6. Marianne Stang Våland What we talk about when we talk about space: End User Participation between Processes of Organizational and Architectural Design 7. Rex Degnegaard Strategic Change Management Change Management Challenges in the Danish Police Reform 8. Ulrik Schultz Brix Værdi i rekruttering – den sikre beslutning En pragmatisk analyse af perception og synliggørelse af værdi i rekrutteringsog udvælgelsesarbejdet 9. Jan Ole Similä Kontraktsledelse Relasjonen mellom virksomhetsledelse og kontraktshåndtering, belyst via fire norske virksomheter 10. Susanne Boch Waldorff Emerging Organizations: In between local translation, institutional logics and discourse 11. Brian Kane Performance Talk Next Generation Management of Organizational Performance 12. Lars Ohnemus Brand Thrust: Strategic Branding and Shareholder Value An Empirical Reconciliation of two Critical Concepts 13. Jesper Schlamovitz Håndtering af usikkerhed i filmog byggeprojekter 14. Tommy Moesby-Jensen Det faktiske livs forbindtlighed Førsokratisk informeret, ny-aristotelisk τ ηθος-tænkning hos Martin Heidegger 15. Christian Fich Two Nations Divided by Common Values French National Habitus and the Rejection of American Power 16. Peter Beyer Processer, sammenhængskraft og fleksibilitet Et empirisk casestudie af omstillingsforløb i fire virksomheder 17. Adam Buchhorn Markets of Good Intentions Constructing and Organizing Biogas Markets Amid Fragility and Controversy 18. Cecilie K. Moesby-Jensen Social læring og fælles praksis Et mixed method studie, der belyser læringskonsekvenser af et lederkursus for et praksisfællesskab af offentlige mellemledere 19. Heidi Boye Fødevarer og sundhed i senmodernismen – En indsigt i hyggefænomenet og de relaterede fødevarepraksisser 20. Kristine Munkgård Pedersen Flygtige forbindelser og midlertidige mobiliseringer Om kulturel produktion på Roskilde Festival 21. Oliver Jacob Weber Causes of Intercompany Harmony in Business Markets – An Empirical Investigation from a Dyad Perspective 22. Susanne Ekman Authority and Autonomy Paradoxes of Modern Knowledge Work 23. Anette Frey Larsen Kvalitetsledelse på danske hospitaler – Ledelsernes indflydelse på introduktion og vedligeholdelse af kvalitetsstrategier i det danske sundhedsvæsen 24. Toyoko Sato Performativity and Discourse: Japanese Advertisements on the Aesthetic Education of Desire 25. Kenneth Brinch Jensen Identifying the Last Planner System Lean management in the construction industry 26. Javier Busquets Orchestrating Network Behavior for Innovation 27. Luke Patey The Power of Resistance: India’s National Oil Company and International Activism in Sudan 28. Mette Vedel Value Creation in Triadic Business Relationships. Interaction, Interconnection and Position 29. Kristian Tørning Knowledge Management Systems in Practice – A Work Place Study 30. Qingxin Shi An Empirical Study of Thinking Aloud Usability Testing from a Cultural Perspective 31. Tanja Juul Christiansen Corporate blogging: Medarbejderes kommunikative handlekraft 32. Malgorzata Ciesielska Hybrid Organisations. A study of the Open Source – business setting 33. Jens Dick-Nielsen Three Essays on Corporate Bond Market Liquidity 34. Sabrina Speiermann Modstandens Politik Kampagnestyring i Velfærdsstaten. En diskussion af trafikkampagners styringspotentiale 35. Julie Uldam Fickle Commitment. Fostering political engagement in 'the flighty world of online activism’ TITLER I ATV PH.D.-SERIEN 1992 1. Niels Kornum Servicesamkørsel – organisation, økonomi og planlægningsmetode 1995 2. Verner Worm Nordiske virksomheder i Kina Kulturspecifikke interaktionsrelationer ved nordiske virksomhedsetableringer i Kina 1999 3. Mogens Bjerre Key Account Management of Complex Strategic Relationships An Empirical Study of the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry 2000 4. Lotte Darsø Innovation in the Making Interaction Research with heterogeneous Groups of Knowledge Workers creating new Knowledge and new Leads 2001 5. Peter Hobolt Jensen Managing Strategic Design Identities The case of the Lego Developer Network 2002 6. Peter Lohmann The Deleuzian Other of Organizational Change – Moving Perspectives of the Human 7. Anne Marie Jess Hansen To lead from a distance: The dynamic interplay between strategy and strategizing – A case study of the strategic management process 2003 8. Lotte Henriksen Videndeling – om organisatoriske og ledelsesmæssige udfordringer ved videndeling i praksis 9. Niels Christian Nickelsen Arrangements of Knowing: Coordinating Procedures Tools and Bodies in Industrial Production – a case study of the collective making of new products 2005 10. Carsten Ørts Hansen Konstruktion af ledelsesteknologier og effektivitet TITLER I DBA PH.D.-SERIEN 2007 1. Peter Kastrup-Misir Endeavoring to Understand Market Orientation – and the concomitant co-mutation of the researched, the re searcher, the research itself and the truth 2009 1. Torkild Leo Thellefsen Fundamental Signs and Significance effects A Semeiotic outline of Fundamental Signs, Significance-effects, Knowledge Profiling and their use in Knowledge Organization and Branding 2. Daniel Ronzani When Bits Learn to Walk Don’t Make Them Trip. Technological Innovation and the Role of Regulation by Law in Information Systems Research: the Case of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 2010 1. Alexander Carnera Magten over livet og livet som magt Studier i den biopolitiske ambivalens