research and innovation management

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

InnovationandManagement →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review

• Published: 16 December 2019
• Volume 26 , pages 533–574, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Mirjam Schuijff   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3601-7483 1 &
• Anne M. Dijkstra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1699-5087 1  

2337 Accesses

34 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Quest for the ‘Right’ Impacts of Science and Technology: A Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation

A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation

Barbara E. Ribeiro, Robert D. J. Smith & Kate Millar

The Value of ‘Measuring’ RRI Performance in Industry

Asveld, L., Ganzevles, J., & Osseweijer, P. (2015). Trustworthiness and responsible research and innovation: The case of the bio-economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28 (3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9542-2 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Anderson, B., Jacobs, R., Golembewski, M., Jirotka, M., et al. (2015). The ethical implications of HCI’s turn to the cultural. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 22 (5), 24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2775107 .

Betten, A. W., Roelofsen, A., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2013). Interactive learning and action: Realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 7 (3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-013-9113-7 .

Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14 (4), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-012-9293-y .

Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., Stassen, E. N., & Gremmen, H. G. J. (2015). Moral “Lock-In” in responsible innovation: The ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and its alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28 (5), 939–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7 .

Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1 .

Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2015). Crafting the group: Care in research management. Social Studies of Science, 45 (3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715585820 .

De Bakker, E., De Lauwere, C., Hoes, A.-C., & Beekman, V. (2014). Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development. Science and Public Policy, 41 (3), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu033 .

De Jong, I. M., Kupper, F., Arentshorst, M., & Broerse, J. (2015). Responsible reporting: Neuroimaging news in the age of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9684-7 .

De Saille, S. (2015a). Dis-inviting the Unruly Public. Science as Culture, 24 (1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986323 .

De Saille, S. (2015b). Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2 (2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280 .

Dijkstra, A. M., Schuijff, M., Yin, L., & Mkansi, S. (2017). RRI in China and South Africa: Cultural adaptation report (Deliverable 3.3 NUCLEUS project). Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://issuu.com/nucleusrri/docs/d3.3_nucleus_cultural_adaptation_re .

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation . Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1e6ada76-a9f7-48f0-aa86-4fb9b16dd10c/language-en .

Douglas, C. M. W., & Stemerding, D. (2013). Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 7 (3), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-013-9119-1 .

Eden, G., Jirotka, M., & Stahl, B. (2013). Responsible research and innovation critical reflection into the potential social consequences of ICT. In R. Wieringa, S. Nurcan, C. Rolland, & J. L. Cavarero (Eds.), Seventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) . IEEE.

Ellwood, P., Pandza, K., & Fisher, E. (2013). Organizational capability life cycles for responsible innovation. In N. Savage, M. Gorman, & A. Street (Eds.), Emerging technologies: Socio-behavioral life cycle approaches (pp. 117–138). Baca Raton: CRC Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

European Commission. (2018). The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation . Science with and for Society. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation .

Fisher, E., & Rip, A. (2013). Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 165–184). London: Wiley.

Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2013a). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘part of the job’ of researchers in industry. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (3), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6 .

Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2013b). The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (3), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9423-2 .

Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2014a). Setting up spaces for collaboration in industry between researchers from the natural and social sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20 (1), 7–22.

Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., Radstake, M., De Winde, J. H., & Osseweijer, P. (2014b). The DNA of socially responsible innovation: Social and natural scientists need to establish mutual understanding and a common language to efficiently work together. EMBO Reports, 15 (2), 134–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201337949 .

Forsberg, E. M., Quaglio, G., O’Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Van Woensel, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2015). Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society, 42, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.12.004 .

Gemen, R., Breda, J., Coutinho, D., Fernández Celemín, L., Khan, S., Kugelberg, S., et al. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in food and health innovation research programming—Key learnings and policy recommendations from the INPROFOOD project. Nutrition Bulletin, 40 (1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12127 .

Gianni, R., Ikonen, V., Goujon, P., & Pearson, J. (2014). Panel — Responsible innovation in research: A reflexive governance to scientific development. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE international symposium on ethics in science, technology and engineering, ETHICS 2014.

Grinbaum, A. (2013). The old-new meaning of researcher’s responsibility. Etica e Politica, 15 (1), 236–250.

Google Scholar  

Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. (2013). What is “Responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 119–142). London: Wiley.

Ikonen, V., Kaasinen, E., Heikkilä, P., & Niemelä, M. (2015). Human-driven design of microand nanotechnology based future sensor systems. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 13 (2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2013-0039 .

König, H., Dorado-Morales, P., & Porcar, M. (2015). Responsibility and intellectual property in synthetic biology: A proposal for using Responsible Research and Innovation as a basic framework for intellectual property decisions in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 16 (9), 1055–1059. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541048 .

Krabbenborg, L., & Mulder, H. A. J. (2015). Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology: Constraints and opportunities. Science Communication, 37 (4), 452–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015588601 .

Landeweerd, L., Townend, D., Mesman, J., & Van Hoyweghen, I. (2015). Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: a contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 11, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y .

L’Astorina, A., Tomasoni, I., Basoni, A., & Carrara, P. (2015). Beyond the dissemination of Earth Observation research: Stakeholders’ and users’ involvement in project co-design. Journal of Science Communication, 14 (3), C03.

Lee, R. G. (2012). Look at mother nature on the run in the 21st century: Responsibility, research and innovation. Transnational Environmental Law, 1 (1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102511000136 .

Lee, R. G., & Petts, J. (2013). Adaptive governance for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 143–164). London: Wiley.

MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue. A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Malsch, I. (2013). Responsible innovation in practice-concepts and tools. Philosophia Reformata, 78 (1), 47–63.

Malsch, I. (2015). Communitarian and subsidiarity perspectives on responsible innovation at a global level. NanoEthics, 9 (2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0234-1 .

Malsch, I., Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., Mullins, M., et al. (2015). Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17 (5), 215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3019-0 .

McBride, N. & Stahl, B. (2014). Developing responsible research and innovation for robotics. In 2014 IEEE international symposium on ethics in science, technology and engineering .

NUCLEUS Annual Conference Report. (2017). Retrieved April 8, 2019, from http://www.nucleus-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D6.3-NUCLEUS-Annual-Conference-Report-2017.pdf .

Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis, 30 (11), 1699–1707. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x .

Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberation and responsible innovation: A geoengineering case study. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 219–240). London: Wiley.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences . A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ravesteijn, W., He, J., & Chen, C. (2014). Responsible innovation and stakeholder management in infrastructures: The Nansha Port Railway Project. Ocean and Coastal Management, 100, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.005 .

Reijers, W., Wright, D., Brey, P., Weber, K., Rodrigues, R., O’Sullivan, D., et al. (2018). Methods for practising ethics in research and innovation: A literature review, critical analysis and recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (5), 1437–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9961-8 .

Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4 .

Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76 (9), 1222–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015 .

Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties . London: Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2004/9693.pdf .

Ruggiu, D. (2015). Anchoring European Governance: Two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points’. NanoEthics, 9 (3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0240-3 .

Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the Lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (4), 769–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8 .

Setiawan, A. D., & Singh, R. (2015). Responsible innovation in practice: The adoption of solar PV in telecom towers in Indonesia. In Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications (pp. 225–244).

Shelley-Egan, C., Bowman, D. M., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2018). Devices of responsibility: Over a decade of responsible research and innovation initiatives for nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (6), 1719–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9978-z .

Shortall, O. K., Raman, S., & Millar, K. (2015). Are plants the new oil? Responsible innovation, biorefining and multipurpose agriculture. Energy Policy, 86, 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.011 .

Simaková, E., & Coenen, C. (2013). Visions, hype, and expectations: A place for responsibility. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 241–268). London: Wiley.

Spruit, S. L., Hoople, G. D., & Rolfe, D. A. (2015). Just a cog in the machine? The individual responsibility of researchers in nanotechnology is a duty to collectivize. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (3), 871–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9718-1 .

Stahl, B. C., Eden, G., Flick, C., Jirotka, M., Nguyen, Q. A., & Timmermans, J. (2015). The observatory for responsible research and innovation in ICT: Identifying problems and sharing good practice. In B. J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications (pp. 105–120). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Stahl, B. C., McBride, N., Wakunuma, K., & Flick, C. (2014). The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.001 .

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42 (9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 .

Sykes, K., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Responsible innovation—Opening up dialogue and debate. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 85–107). London: Wiley.

Timmermans, J., Zhao, Y., & Van der Hoven, J. (2011). Ethics and nanopharmacy: Value sensitive design of new drugs. NanoEthics, 5 (3), 269–283.

Van der Hoven, J. (2013). Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 75–84). London: John Wiley.

Van der Meij, M. G. (2015). Reflections on the impact of (playful) deliberation processes in contexts of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 14 (3), C04.

Von Schomberg, R. (2013a). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). London: Wiley.

Von Schomberg, R. (2013b). The quest for the ‘right’ impacts of science and technology. A framework for responsible research and innovation. In J. Van den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops, & H. Romijn (Eds.), Responsible innovation 1. Innovative solutions for global issues (pp. 33–50). Berlin: Springer.

Wickson, F., & Forsberg, E.-M. (2015). Standardising responsibility? The significance of interstitial spaces. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (5), 1159–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9602-4 .

Wodzisz, R. (2015). Case study of R-1234yf refrigerant: Implications for the framework for responsible innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (6), 1413–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9612-2 .

Wright, D., Gellert, R., Gutwirth, S., & Friedewald, M. (2011). Minimizing technology risks with PIAs, precaution, and participation. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 30 (4), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2011.943460 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the help of Drs. Peter Noort from the University Library of the University of Twente, for the support of Prof. Dr. Menno de Jong of the University of Twente when preparing and conducting the review study, and for the helpful comments made by the reviewers on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

Mirjam Schuijff & Anne M. Dijkstra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne M. Dijkstra .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

This study was funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme as part of the NUCLEUS project (Grant Number 664932). NUCLEUS is a 4-year project, running from 2015 to 2019, bringing RRI in practice in universities and research institutes.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schuijff, M., Dijkstra, A.M. Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review. Sci Eng Ethics 26 , 533–574 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00167-3

Download citation

Received : 23 August 2018

Accepted : 05 December 2019

Published : 16 December 2019

Issue Date : April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00167-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Responsible research and innovation (RRI)
• Academic debate versus practices
• Systematic literature review
• Implementing RRI
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: emerging trends in innovation management and entrepreneurship development in the 21st century: issues, challenges, and opportunities.

• 1 Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Bahrain, Sakhir, Bahrain
• 2 Kedge Business School, Talence, France

Editorial on the Research Topic Emerging trends in innovation management and entrepreneurship development in the 21st century: issues, challenges, and opportunities

1. Introduction

Constant improvements in digital technology have triggered a historic shift in how people live and work. Examples include the proliferation of digital ride-hailing platforms that rapidly grab market share from incumbent transportation providers and the emergence of entirely new industries, such as unmanned aerial vehicles based on digitized hardware that did not exist until recently. The rapidity and pervasiveness of this shift, as well as its worldwide influence, has prompted not just business owners and inventors but also government agencies throughout the world to evaluate and act on the consequences this shift may have on competition, value creation, and society at large ( ACCC, 2019 ; Furman et al., 2019 ). In today's digital age, innovation and entrepreneurship refer to activities where digital technology is used for conventional business models. The revolutionary developments brought due to digital transformation are beneficial to both fields. Digital technologies, according to the literature ( Jasimuddin et al., 2017 ; Nambisan, 2017 ; Al-Shammari and Waleed, 2018 ; Al-Shammari and Marhoon, 2022 ), dissolve traditional boundaries and shift the agency of entrepreneurship and innovation processes and outcomes, potentially rendering existing theories obsolete and necessitating investigation of these intersections as novel phenomena. The premise is that digital technologies are not merely another technological transition but fundamentally different from their analog predecessors ( Gu and Wang, 2022 ; Xia et al., 2022 ). For instance, they can continually develop ( Yusof et al., 2023 ) and overthrow established behaviors ( Naeini et al., 2022 ; Pfotenhauer et al., 2022 ). As an innovative practice, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) continues beyond the implementation stage. Although most sources see BRR implementation as the last stage of BPR management, companies should keep it that way because modern businesses function in a volatile and ever-changing environment. Keeping the feedback loop open is crucial for the success of the reengineering effort. The established framework offers SMEs a paradigm for reengineering preparation and transformation into an ongoing activity rather than a one-off attempt ( Aziz, 2019 ). The global impact of digital technologies on economic and social activities is something that not even visionaries like Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon), Sergey Brin and Larry Page (the founders of Google), or Steve Jobs (the co-founder of Apple) could have foreseen. Put another way; digital technologies may be viewed as external facilitators that stimulate and encourage processes or enable results in entrepreneurship and innovation ( Von Briel et al., 2018 ). Products ( Keränen et al., 2022 ), product or service platforms ( Pattinson et al., 2023 ), infrastructure tools or systems ( Aldrich, 2014 ; Nakshabandi and Jasimuddin, 2022 ), and digital applications, components, or media content are just a few examples of the functions and manifestations digital technologies may take on ( Berger et al., 2021 ). This Research Topic expands the current understanding by bringing together entrepreneurship and innovation management experts. We begin by surveying what is known about entrepreneurship development and innovation management research; then, we explain how each piece adds to the body of knowledge and business practices. Then we suggest where the field may go from here in terms of new avenues for study.

2. Innovation management and organizational objectives

“Innovation management” refers to practices standardizing how innovative ideas, processes, and goods are developed and introduced into the market ( Jasimuddin, 2012 ). Furthermore, small, medium and big businesses' performance benefits from this process ( Melendez et al., 2019 ). When a firm aims to gain a competitive edge via innovation development, the innovation management process must be effectively implemented by formulating strategies and establishing an adequate administrative framework to back up the innovation ( Melendez et al., 2019 ). In recent years, there has been a slew of qualitative research on innovation management. According to Morente and Ferràs (2017) , a conceptual framework for innovation management was developed, focusing on the role of brokers in the process. To evaluate the effectiveness of innovation management in construction firms, Serpell and Alvarez detailed a mixed quantitative and qualitative strategy for doing so ( Adeel et al., 2023 ). The concepts of effective innovation behavior and management in related organizations were uncovered in a different study by Frank (2019) . Other topics studied by researchers in this area include how organizational culture affects innovation management ( Huarng et al., 2021 ), the impact of strategic knowledge management on innovation ( Marques et al., 2016 ; Nakshabandi and Jasimuddin, 2018 ), the social processes that take place during the implementation of radical organizational innovation ( Keränen et al., 2022 ), and the determination of the necessary organizational methods for generating innovation within an enterprise ( Vargas-Halabi et al., 2017 ). According to Aziz (2022) , in today's fast-paced society, people are finding less and less time and space to create changes that will stay. As a result, governments, communities, regulators, and lawmakers should develop new guidelines to aid individuals and businesses in implementing sustainable marketing innovation (SMI). They should invest in consumer education and assistance programs to help consumers change their social values and intervene with companies to help influence consumer choices in a way that benefits society.

As demonstrated in Figure 1 by Naeini et al. (2022) , the timeframe (2004–2020) has eight clusters. There are two clusters in the first quarter (One bordering the fourth quarter) and two in the second, third, and fourth quarters. Several substantial adjustments have been made in the clusters and regions associated with each in this time compared to the previous two periods. Important developments in this era include a more profound integration of the keywords and domains of each cluster, an increase in the repetitions of words in each group, and the development of new fields.

2.1. Innovation's role in driving economic development

As mentioned earlier, much has been written about the correlation between innovation and economic development. Four different theoretical frameworks can describe this connection. The first school favors a supply-leading notion that innovation Granger generates economic expansion. Supporters of this school of thought maintain that the creation of novel ideas, such as those developed through R&D and other forms of innovation, can lead to the introduction of new goods and services as well as the development of novel processes as well as novel forms of doing business (see, for instance, Pradhan et al., 2018 ). The second view holds that increased prosperity is a direct source of new technological advancements, known as the “demand-following” theory. It is argued that prosperous nations put more resources into R&D to preserve their economic competitiveness in the global market as they grow (see, for instance, Pradhan et al., 2016 ). Third, the feedback hypothesis proposes that technological progress and economic expansion mutually cause and reinforce one another (see, for example, Galindo and Méndez, 2014 ; Pradhan et al., 2016 ; Wang and Fu, 2023 ). Intriguingly, depending on the factors and samples employed, researchers such as Pradhan et al. (2017) found evidence for all three theories. The fourth school of thinking presents a neutrality hypothesis, contending that technological progress and economic expansion are not Granger-caused ( Pradhan et al., 2017 ) because many of these economies might be in their formative stages of invention. As a result, innovation has little or no impact on economic development. Traditional factors of production undoubtedly account for much of the growth in these economies.

2.2. Entrepreneurship's role in driving economic development

Four schools of thought explain the Granger causality between entrepreneurship and economic growth, which is analogous to the relationship between innovation and economic expansion/development. A supply-leading theory first suggests that entrepreneurial Granger generates economic expansion. The economic justification is that business owners take risks and invest in the R&D that leads to the introduction of brand-new goods and services, as well as enhanced versions of existing ones and innovative new ways of doing business ( Urbano and Aparicio, 2016 ; Sedera et al., 2022 ). Secondly, many believe entrepreneurs directly result from economic progress (the “Granger cause” view). This line of thinking is premised on the idea that as an economy develops, governments can better invest in fostering entrepreneurship by putting in place fiscal and non-fiscal incentives, new institutions, and a more favorable regulatory framework for business creation. Boosting entrepreneurial efforts and innovative ideas through strengthening business support infrastructure. Nguyen and Nguyen (2023) and Pan et al. (2023) conducted two studies that provide credence to this theory. There is also the feedback hypothesis, which states that entrepreneurial activity and economic expansion mutually cause and reinforce one another via the process of Granger causation. For instance, fostering an entrepreneurial mindset may boost the economy, and a flourishing economy can inspire more risk-taking and new business creation. Huggins and Thomson (2015) and Wennekers and Thurik (2016) are two pieces of research that lend credence to this theory.

2.3. Interactions between innovation and entrepreneurship

Thirdly, a body of research looks at the probable Granger causation between entrepreneurship and innovation, and these findings may be summed up in four distinct ways. The supply-leading hypothesis advocates claim that entrepreneurs are the Granger cause of new products and processes. Economic theory suggests that business owners who risk capital on R&D and innovation are more likely to get a positive return on their money. These business owners have a knack for determining which companies will provide them with the best return on investment. Entrepreneurs who advocate for changes drive most of the venture capital business in many industrialized economies. According to the proponents of the demand-following theory, entrepreneurship is caused by innovation via the Granger causality chain. They justify this by saying that new advances, particularly technical ones, have led to new forms of company organization. These advancements have produced new “open innovation” platforms and made it easier to enter new markets ( Jasimuddin and Nakshabandi, 2019 ). The latter has further strengthened the increased availability of information, expertise, market intelligence, and other resources, all of which have contributed to a rise in entrepreneurial endeavors. Investments like Uber's online user-friendly platform connecting taxi drivers have allowed every driver to try their hand at entrepreneurship. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and other government initiatives in the United States are shown to have positive knock-on effects ( Zhang et al., 2023 ). The SBIR program has facilitated the rise of new startup companies and commercialization endeavors by giving small enterprises access to research, development, and innovation funding.

Another study lends credence to the idea of an entrepreneurship-innovation nexus feedback theory, which holds that the dissemination of entrepreneurship and innovations are Granger-caused by one another. The idea here is that when business owners spend money on modern technologies, such advancements improve the availability and quality of previously available goods and services while lowering entry barriers. These factors encourage new business owners to enter the field. Galindo and Méndez (2014) and Capello and Lenzi (2016) , for example, examined the connection between entrepreneurship and innovation (2013). Fourth, the neutrality hypothesis states that entrepreneurialism and innovation do not Granger-cause one another. One economic justification is that some nations have poor or non-existent entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. Over-regulation, hostile business practices, rent-seeking conduct, poor expenditures in R&D, and a lengthy procedure to register patents and company licenses/permits may all impede innovation and entrepreneurial activity. These factors are apparent in nations like these ( Pattinson et al., 2023 ).

3. Papers in the Research Topic

Following that, we hereunder present a review of each article accepted for this Research Topic. After that, we establish an agenda for innovation management and entrepreneurship development regarding the current opportunities and challenges, interspersing our opinions with those of our contributing author teams. Our goal is to inform Frontiers of Psychology's readers about the theories, methods, and best practices that connect entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth. We are pleased to receive 12 submissions for the peer-reviewed papers. We thank those who volunteered to review the submitted manuscripts and met a tight deadline.

The first article in this Research Topic explores how variations in leadership style affect workers' propensity for unconventional thinking-considering both internal and external subordinate viewpoints ( Lu et al. ). Based on the differential sequence pattern, the authors argue that differential leadership emerged as a decentralized form of leadership through time. Both “insider subordinates” and “outer subordinates” can benefit from the dynamic changing of roles. The study uses game logic to distinguish between the strategies employed by an insider and outer subordinates while enacting deviant, creative actions. Through a reasoning process aided by a simulation graph, individuals with a high risk-taking trait on the inside and employees with a high internal control personality on the outside are both encouraged to engage in deviant creative activities. Differential leadership fosters workers' deviant, innovative conduct, and the theoretical derivation of behavior gives necessary references and countermeasures to encourage this behavior.

The second article in this Research Topic examines how students' perceptions of their abilities affect the degree to which they can innovate and adapt to new social situations in the workforce ( Li et al. ). The authors argue that a greater degree of creative capability and social adaptation among students increases their employability by giving them greater faith in their talents to take calculated risks and realize desired outcomes. According to the study, positive interference of innovative capability, social adaptability, and self-efficacy may increase undergraduates' employability in the knowledge-based economy era.

The creative work behavior in high-tech enterprises: chain intermediate impact of psychological safety and information sharing is the topic of the third article in this Research Topic ( Xu and Suntrayuth ). This study's overarching goal is to examine how psychological safety (PS) and knowledge sharing (KS) might mediate the connection between an organization's innovation environment (OIC) and employees' creative work behavior (IWB). This research, grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), offers a theoretical framework for investigating creativity at work. The structure of the expanded SCT model was validated using data from 446 R&D professionals at Chinese high-tech companies. There was a favorable relationship between employees' sense of psychological safety and their willingness to take risks at work. Innovation at work was found to be strongly and positively connected with knowledge exchange.

Moreover, psychological safety improves individual innovative work behavior by influencing knowledge sharing among research team members. Psychological safety and knowledge sharing mediate the relationship between organizational innovation climate and work behavior. The study's shortcomings, practical consequences, and suggestions for further research were all examined at length.

The Research Topic's fourth article looked at Australian organizations to analyze the roles of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in converting innovation intention into performance ( Abeysekera ). The Theory of Planned Behavior provided the theoretical foundation for the study. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship were used in the study as mediator constructs to address potential research issues. Data that contrasted performance increases between the COVID-19 financial years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 were descriptively assessed in the study. Businesses that actively pursue innovation outperform those that do not. With increased performance with business size, major corporations outperformed medium-sized and small businesses. There was no clear distinction between firms with the same or lower performance and those without an innovation-active status. According to the survey, companies have widened their performance approach after the financial crisis to include the triple bottom line, which promotes performance in the economy, society, and the environment.

4. Concluding remarks

This Research Topic generates many conversations to advance our understanding of the connectivity of connected entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth. The papers in this Research Topic reflect the latest research and empirical findings on all aspects, issues, policies, and practices of innovation and entrepreneurship development in the digital economy of the 21st century at the individual, organizational, industry, national, and international levels.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the opportunity to organize this Research Topic of Frontiers of Psychology and thank all those who contributed. We thank all the reviewers, editorial board members, and the publication team for making this Research Topic possible.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

ACCC (2019). Digital Platforms Inquiry: Final Report . Canberra, ACT: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Google Scholar

Adeel, S., Daniel, A. D., and Botelho, A. (2023). The effect of entrepreneurship education on the determinants of entrepreneurial behavior among higher education students: a multi-group analysis. J. Innovat. Knowl . 8, 100324. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2023.100324

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aldrich, H. E. (2014). “The democratization of entrepreneurship? Hackers, makerspaces, and crowdfunding,” in Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (Philadelphia, PA).

Al-Shammari, M., and Marhoon, Z. (2022). Human resource management practices and technological innovation: an empirical study in an emerging market economy. Int. J. Work Innovat. 3, 151–165. doi: 10.1504/IJWI.2022.126858

Al-Shammari, M., and Waleed, R. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions of private university students in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Int. J. Innovat. Sci. 10, 43–57. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-06-2017-0058

Aziz, W. A. (2019). Business process reengineering impact on SMEs operations: evidence from GCC region. Int. J. Serv. Operat. Manag. 33, 545–562. doi: 10.1504/IJSOM.2019.101590

Aziz, W. A. (2022). “Marketing sustainability, resilience, and innovation capacity: lessons from the online retail industry,” in Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Design Innovation (SRC). IEEE Xplore ® , 462–471.

Berger, E. S., Von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., and Kuckertz, A. (2021). Digital or not – The future of entrepreneurship and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 125, 436–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.020

Capello, R., and Lenzi, C. (2016). Relevance and utility of European Union research, technological development, and innovation policies for smart growth. Environ. Plann. C Govern. Policy 34, 52–72. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15614655

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Frank, H. (2019). Principles for innovation management in family firms: an analysis of long-term successful good practices with a practitioner validation of the principles. J. Fam. Bus. Manag . 9, 319–348. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-09-2018-0049

Furman, J., Coyle, D., Fletcher, A., McAuley, D., and Marsden, P. (2019). Unlocking digital competition. Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel . London: UK Government.

Galindo, M., and Méndez, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: are feedback effects at work? J. Business Res . 67, 825–829. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.052

Gu, W., and Wang, J. (2022). Research on index construction of sustainable entrepreneurship and its impact on economic growth. J. Bus. Res . 142, 266–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.060

Huarng, K. H., Guaita-Martinez, J. M., and Yu, T. H. K. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of new research methods in innovation, entrepreneurship, and knowledge. J. Bus. Res. 134, 101–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.058

Huggins, R., and Thomson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional growth: a network theory. Small Bus. Econ. 45, 103–128. doi: 10.1007/s11187-015-9643-3

Jasimuddin, S. M. (2012). Knowledge Management- An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

Jasimuddin, S. M., Mishra, N., and Almuraqab, N. (2017). Modeling the factors that influence the acceptance of digital technologies in e-government services: a PLS-SEM Approach, Prod. Plann. Control 28, 1307–1317. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1375144

Jasimuddin, S. M., and Nakshabandi, M. (2019). Linkage between knowledge infrastructure capability and inbound open innovation: the intervening role of absorptive capacity. Prod. Plann. Control 30, 893–906. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1582097

Keränen, O., Lehtimäki, T., Komulainen, H., and Ulkuniemi, P. (2022). Changing the market for a sustainable innovation. Ind. Market. Manag. 108, 108–121. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.005

Marques, C. S., Leal, C., Marques, C. P., and Cardoso, A. R. (2016). Strategic knowledge management, innovation, and performance: a qualitative study of the footwear industry. J. Knowl. Econ . 7, 659–675. doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0249-4

Melendez, K., d'Avila, A., and Melgar, A. (2019). Literature review of the measurement in innovation management. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 14, 81–87. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242019000200081

Morente, F., and Ferràs, X. (2017). Innovation management from the inside: an approach from attention and everyday praxis. Intangible Capital 13, 640. doi: 10.3926/ic.1004

Naeini, A. B., Zamani, M., Daim, T. U., Sharma, M., and Yalcin, H. (2022). Conceptual structure and perspectives on “innovation management”: a bibliometric review. J. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 185, 122052. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122052

Nakshabandi, M., and Jasimuddin, S. M. (2018). Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation: role of knowledge management capability in France-based Multinationals. Int. Bus. Rev. 27, 701–713. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.12.001

Nakshabandi, M. A., and Jasimuddin, S. M. (2022). The linkage between open innovation, absorptive capacity and managerial ties: a cross-country perspective. J. Innovat. Knowl. 7, 100167. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100167

Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: towards a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneur. Theory Pract. 41, 1029–1056. doi: 10.1111/etap.12254

Nguyen, Q. D., and Nguyen, H. T. (2023). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial capacity. Int. J. Manag. Educ . 21, 100730. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100730

Pan, X, Lia, J., Shen, Z., and Song, M. (2023). Life cycle identification of China's regional innovation systems based on entropy weight disturbing attribute model. Habitat Int . 131, 102725. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102725

Pattinson, S., Nicholson, J. N., Ehret, M., Velu, C., and Ryan, P. (2023). Innovation ecosystems in B2B contexts: owning the space. Ind. Market. Manag. J. 108, A1–A9. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.004

Pfotenhauer, S. M., Wentland, A., and Ruge, L. (2022). Understanding regional innovation cultures: narratives, directionality, and conservative innovation in Bavaria. Res. Policy 52, 104704. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104704

Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., and Bahmani, S. (2018). Are innovation and financial development causative factors in economic growth? Evidence from a panel Granger causality test. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132, 130–142. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.024

Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Bahmani, S., and Bennett, S. E. (2017). The Innovation-growth link in OECD countries: could other macroeconomic variables matter? Technol. Soc. 51, 113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.08.003

Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Hall, J. H., and Nair, M. (2016). Innovation, financial development, and economic growth in Eurozone countries. Appl. Econ. Lett. 23, 1141–1144. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2016.1139668

Sedera, D., Tan, C. W., and Xu, D. (2022). Digital business transformation in innovation and entrepreneurship. Inf. Manag. J. 59, 103620. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2022.103620

Urbano, D., and Aparicio, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship capital types and economic growth: international evidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 34–44. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.018

Vargas-Halabi, T., Mora-Esquivel, R., and Siles, B. (2017). Intrapreneurial competencies: development and validation of a measurement scale. Eur. J. Manage. Business Econ . 26, 86–111. doi: 10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006

Von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., and Recker, J. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneur. Theory Pract. 42, 47–69. doi: 10.1177/1042258717732779

Wang, C., and Fu, B. (2023). A study on the efficiency of allocation and its influencing factors on innovation and entrepreneurship education resources in Chinese universities under the five-in-one model. Int. J. Manag. Educ . 21, 100755. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100755

Wennekers, S., and Thurik, R. (2016). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. 13, 27–55. doi: 10.1023/A:1008063200484

Xia, H., Ye, P., Jasimuddin, S. M., and Zhang, Z. J. (2022). Evolution of digital transformation in traditional enterprises: evidence from a textile company in China: digital transformation in traditional enterprises. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 34, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2124909

Yusof, N., Kamal, E. M, Eric, C. W., Loub, E. C. W., and Kamaruddeen, A. M. (2023). Effects of innovation capability on radical and incremental innovations and business performance relationships. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 67, 101726. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101726

Zhang, X., Chu, Z., Ren, L., and Xing, J. (2023). Open innovation and sustainable competitive advantage: the role of organizational learning. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 186, 122114. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122114

Keywords: innovation, entrepreneurship, economic development, leadership, sustainability

Citation: Al-Shammari M, Aziz WA and Jasimuddin SM (2023) Editorial: Emerging trends in innovation management and entrepreneurship development in the 21st century: issues, challenges, and opportunities. Front. Psychol. 14:1145727. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1145727

Received: 16 January 2023; Accepted: 07 September 2023; Published: 20 September 2023.

Edited and reviewed by: Zhenzhong Ma , University of Windsor, Canada

Copyright © 2023 Al-Shammari, Aziz and Jasimuddin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Minwir Al-Shammari, minwir@gmail.com ; malshammari@uob.edu.bh

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 26 February 2024

How institutions can tap into research managers’ potential

Senior editor, Nature Index

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Part of a research manager’s remit is to act as a liaison between researchers and funding agencies, companies and governments. Credit: SetsukoN/Getty

The global research ecosystem is becoming increasingly complex, meaning that institutions with strong research management and administration teams could have an advantage in undertaking multidisciplinary and cross-border projects. To attract the next generation of research management and administration professionals and to support their growth, institutions need to provide them with a clear career trajectory, proposes a book published in November.

The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World brings together the perspectives of research managers and administrators (RMAs) and highlights the field’s biggest developments and most urgent needs. The book was edited by Simon Kerridge, an honorary member of staff in research and innovation services at the University of Kent, UK; Susi Poli, who studies higher-education staff development at the University of Bologna, Italy; and Mariko Yang-Yoshihara, an instructor and education researcher at Stanford University in California.

Nature Index spoke to Kerridge, Poli and Yang-Yoshihara about the most important insights they gained from compiling the book.

What prompted you to produce the book?

In the past few decades, scholars and practitioners have noted the rise of RMAs, who play a crucial part in scientific ecosystems worldwide. However, few initiatives have investigated RMAs in a cross-regional manner and have aimed to understand their role in a broader context.

The three of us met at a conference in early 2020 and decided to write a paper together. But then the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Regular Zoom meetings kept us engaged and prompted a constant flow of ideas. Our plans evolved and expanded. Eventually, one of us said, “Why don’t we write a book?” The suggestion seemed a bit audacious at first, but we have something in common: optimism. This is how a simple idea to combine three people’s research evolved into a three-year project that involved authors from around the world.

What are the largest challenges for RMAs globally, based on your findings?

The biggest hurdle is the absence of a well-defined and structured career path. A consistent theme emerges in the book: although RMAs are gaining global recognition, particularly in regions such as North America, Western Europe, Asia and Australasia, many countries are still developing a clear occupational trajectory for those entering the field. Individuals in research administration in South America, the Middle East, Central and Eastern Europe and Africa, frequently feel undervalued.

This book was born out of a desire to change the narrative. Despite having diverse doctoral and career backgrounds, we all recognized that during our graduate studies, the focus was on how to become academics, not professionals, such as RMAs. We aim to shift this perspective and show the next generation that becoming an RMA could be a viable and rewarding career path, and that they could help to advance science and knowledge as much as academics do. Currently, few university students or young professionals see research management and administration as an occupation.

In the final chapter (chapter 6), we emphasize that policymakers and institutional leaders need to be proactive in raising awareness of RMAs’ importance in global research collaborations and in encouraging top talent to pursue careers in the field.

How did you achieve such a broad investigation of RMAs?

The book is structured into two main sections. The first part aims to foster best practice in the field and provide resources for future generations of RMAs. The second compiles country- and region-specific information, and aims to capture the current state of the field globally. We brought on board regional editors who helped to identify and communicate with individual authors, who could contribute country-specific observations. We also used associations that were members of the International Network of Research Management Societies to help find contributors in regions beyond the reach of our personal networks.

Four global-south researchers making cross-border collaborations count

Most previous studies on RMAs were written mainly by authors in North American and European countries, leading to a skewed contribution by these regions. We made concerted efforts to broaden our reach to regions in which research on RMAs had not previously been documented; at least, not in the English language. In the end, 127 authors from 50 regions and countries contributed their expertise.

We acknowledge that, despite its unprecedented scope, the book could not include some countries and regions. In some cases, this was because people we approached did not respond our calls, or because of language barriers, political situations or limitations in our network. Furthermore, widespread recognition of RMAs in research ecosystems in certain countries might also be lacking. We think that identifying regions in which the profession lags behind could enable further understanding of RMAs’ roles in projects.

What key differences did you identify in the roles of RMAs from various regions and countries?

One distinction highlighted by several authors is the gender profile (see, for example, chapter 5.44 ). In most countries, around 80% of RMAs identify as women. However, in certain regions (including Africa) and countries (such as Colombia and Japan), the gender distribution seems to be more balanced. This could be because this profession is relatively new in these places, meaning that more individuals enter the field from researcher roles rather than by transitioning from other professional routes.

What kinds of initiative are most effective in advancing the reputation, function and integration of RMAs in the wider research community?

One of the key findings of the book is the growing importance of professional associations in shaping and advancing the profession.

RMAs can join numerous national and regional associations, such as the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators , the Australasian Research Management Society, the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association and the West African Research and Innovation Management Association. National organizations with an international reach, such as the US National Council of University Research Administrators and the US Society of Research Administrators International, provide RMAs with a sense of belonging beyond national boundaries and increase the legitimacy of the profession and the mobility of those working in the field.

The book also notes the emerging trend of professionalization in regions such as Africa and Asia, and there are early signs of similar associations being set up in Central and Eastern European countries and the Caribbean.

What are the most valuable but unrecognized skills of RMAs?

Many chapters in the first part highlight the importance of ‘soft’ skills, such as effective communication, the building of collaborations, inclusive leadership and cross-cultural understanding. It is essential for RMAs to establish robust relationships and partnerships with key stakeholders such as researchers, funders, institutional leaders and policymakers. There is much discussion globally about the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for taking over certain administrative roles, but skills such as the ability to navigate intricate situations with tenacity, being adaptable and having a considerable amount of empathy are often overlooked and unrecognized. We think that these skills can’t easily be replaced by AI.

Academic researchers bring expertise, yet, just as a skilled racing driver still needs a team of engineers to anticipate problems and offer support, RMAs also have an indispensable role in the effective administration of research projects.

We hope that readers use this book as a platform for discussions that shape the future of RMAs and that they will seize opportunities in this evolving field.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00591-x

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Related Articles

Calls for culture change as “them versus us” mindset drives rift between academic and non-academic staff

How research managers are using AI to get ahead

AI could be an opportunity for research managers

• Developing world
• Institutions
• Research management
• Scientific community

AI can help to tailor drugs for Africa — but Africans should lead the way

Comment 09 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Time to sound the alarm about the hidden epidemic of kidney disease

Editorial 03 APR 24

CERN’s impact goes way beyond tiny particles

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results

News 06 APR 24

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Nature Index 25 MAR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Postdoctoral Position

We are seeking highly motivated and skilled candidates for postdoctoral fellow positions

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston Children's Hospital (BCH)

Qiushi Chair Professor

Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Zhejiang University

ZJU 100 Young Professor

Promising young scholars who can independently establish and develop a research direction.

Head of the Thrust of Robotics and Autonomous Systems

Reporting to the Dean of Systems Hub, the Head of ROAS is an executive assuming overall responsibility for the academic, student, human resources...

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Head of Biology, Bio-island

Head of Biology to lead the discovery biology group.

BeiGene Ltd.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Investigative
• Print Edition
• Submit a Tip

Tufts 4+1 degrees, Part 4: Master’s Degrees in Innovation and Management

Students design and market products aimed at fixing real-world issues while obtaining a master’s degree..

Blair Horning (far right) and his team pictured at the Tufts $100K New Ventures Competition.

In the fourth and final installment of the Tufts 4+1 degree program series, the Gordon Institute F ifth-Year M asters of Scien ce in Innovation & Management program prepares students for the role of product manager or project manager.

Kevin Oye  ( E’79 ) is the e xecutive director  of the Gordon Institute, the director of the MSIM program and a professor of the practice.   After 35 years of working with tech companies , Oye returned to Tufts where he was eventually appointed to launch the MSIM program.

The Gordon Institute holds three different master’s programs:  M.S. in Technology Management & Leadership , M.S. in Engineering Management  and the M.S. in Innovation & Management.  In the last eight years, there have been over 160 graduates from the Gordon Institute, Oye said.

“They've gone on to do wonderful things. … They work in big companies … but they’ve also done startups, leveraging Tufts technology,”  Oye said. “We as an organization are reaching out to the faculty across the university to bring their research into not only our classroom but as potential ventures.”

About 85% of students in the MSIM program have a STEM background, while the other 15% range from economics to fine arts majors, Oye said.   Tufts undergraduates can enter the program with four elective course credits, meaning they only need to take an additional six courses.   This equates to about a 40% reduction in costs for the MSIM fifth-year program.

The students of the MSIM program are both recent graduates and working professionals. The mixed classroom provides a great opportunity for networking and, in some cases, helps fifth-year students find internships and job postings.

The first semester consists of classes that provide the foundational knowledge on how to build a startup, including marketing and finance. In the second semester, students have more flexibility in choosing their courses within the Gordon Institute. In addition to applicable coursework, students are paired up with mentors who are graduates and alumni of the MSIM program.

Throughout the year, students form small teams and build a startup around a product. They conduct thorough research, look at the financials  and work on marketing their product.

The Gordon Institute prides itself on the fact that all the faculty are industry practitioners. This allows the program to stay up to date on the current expectations and challenges within the industry.

“When ChatGPT came out, we could have people who were embracing it and were experimenting with how they’re going to incorporate it into their businesses, [and] we’re going to learn with our students how to leverage it,”  Oye said.

Oye expanded on the overarching goals of the MSIM program and the Gordon Institute.

“Part of our ethos as the Gordon Institute is we want to create a worldwide community of transformative leaders with heart ,” Oye said. “My goal is to make [the Gordon Institute] the partner of choice for anyone in the university who wants to leverage innovation, entrepreneurship, leadership or management .”

The program allows  students to dive into projects that pique their interests, making each student experience unique.

Meghan Davis   graduated from Tufts in 2023 with a Biomedical Engineering degree and entered the MSIM program last fall.   Davis is also pursuing a master's in Biomedical Engineering through the dual degree program between the Gordon Institute and the School of Engineering. Because Davis was able to carry over and apply the courses she took in undergraduate to both the MSIM and BME master's programs, she is able to graduate in December.

“As an undergrad, I studied biomedical engineering and really loved it, but didn't know where I wanted to go with it,”  Davis said.

Davis took an engineering management course during her sophomore year to explore entrepreneurship. When she heard about the MSIM program through the Gordon Institute’s emails, she was excited to apply to the program.

During the summer before entering the MSIM program, Davis was tasked with brainstorming anything in the world that people were struggling with. On the first day of classes, her classmates shared all their ideas and broke into random groups to begin finding their project for the year.

At the midpoint and end of the semester, the teams have the opportunity to pitch to a panel of judges and receive constructive feedback, before pitching their products to real investors.

Davis’ team struggled for the first half of the fall semester to find a project, so they reached out to biomedical engineering professor David Kaplan to learn about the side projects he was working on.

The lab was working on a “silk spray device which goes over burn victims’ [wounds] ,” Davis said. “It’s used as a seal that prevents food loss and protects against infection, which are some of the key issues with [the] current standard of care for burn treatment.”  

On Davis’ team, there are engineers, data scientists and one psychology major.

“I think if it was all engineers, then  there wouldn’t  I feel like there wouldn't be as much progress as when you have a lot of different perspectives and a lot of different disciplines that are all kind of combining and looking at the product through different lenses,”  Davis said.

Davis’ team is passionate about the product and some of them are considering staying on after graduation.

“Our next steps are … figuring out tests that we have to run for our product that will align with the [Food and Drug Administration] protocol,” Davis said. “Even if you don't end up continuing on with the startup, they have a lot of really great applications in other areas, so a negotiation class can also be used to negotiate a salary for a job.”

Blair Horning  graduated from Tufts last year  with a degree in mechanical engineering. In his undergrad, Horning also minored in engineering management through the Gordon Institute.

“I was enamored by the classes that they offered. It was a great breath of fresh air from the engineering courses,”  Horning said. “I've met a bunch of great people, but I've also learned so many practical and real-life skills that I did not learn in my undergraduate. [These] are going to help me excel in my career and be the jumping off point for how I build on my career.”

Horning’s team is working on a startup called Insight, which aims to change the current methods for concussion assessment.

“Introducing computer vision and AI into this concussion assessment method allows us to further really look at the pupillary light response, which is a very big biomarker and indicator for any concussive blows, or any neurocognitive damage after taking a concussive hit,”  Horning said. “We're trying to implement this right on the sideline for games or right after the event to provide trainers [and] medical professional coaches with actual quantifiable data to back up their return to play decisions.”

The MSIM program provides Horning and his teammates the opportunity to utilize their technical backgrounds in a business-oriented setting. The program is rooted in teaching skills, but also the importance of being grounded in a deep purpose and having empathy for the consumer.

“[The program] makes you want to take that leap into the unknown and the undefined to figure out exactly what it is you're trying to solve ,” Horning said. “It's made me somebody who is much more conscious of everybody in my surroundings, but also much more conscious of my actions and the results that come with them, especially when it comes to products .”

Horning has a job lined up after graduation as part of the Comcast Internet Product Management team but still intends to be active in continuing his project from MSIM.

“We've gotten an extreme amount of validation on our idea and the gap in the space in which we're working in. And our approach that we're taking right now is truly innovative in the sense that we can be the first to do it. And this could make an enormous change for the sports industry as a whole. So I really would love to … keep moving forward,”  Horning said.

Current students and alumni of the Gordon Institute have found the master’s programs to be both enlightening and inspirational for their career pathways. The MSIM program specifically teaches students how to leverage their technical background by building their managerial skills to excel in both the start-up space and the competitive job market. Most importantly, though, the program teaches students how to become value-driven leaders in their field.

“I hope [the teachings of the program] gives everyone a chance to lead a life that they feel has great purpose [and] great impact,” Oye said. “What other life could you possibly live?”  

Munching with Max: Pizza

Weekly Wellness: Should we all be running marathons?

Farming for a future

Editorial: the daily’s 2024 declassified tufts survival guide, tufts’ cost of attendance reaches record-breaking $92,167 for upcoming academic year, the april fools’ email was a call to action — and it was funny, editorial: moving forward from tupd misconduct, protests on the israel-hamas war evoke questions about civic engagement.

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Focus and Scope

Privacy statement, apc payment.

Payments for APC of this journal can be made through our online PayPal payment gateway. Enter the article no. into the below textbox and select "Pay Now" to proceed with payment.

*Article No. is mandatory for payment and it can be found on the acceptance letter issued by the Editorial Office. Payment without indicating Article No. will result in processing problem and delay in article processing. Please note that payments will be processed in USD. You can make payment through Masters, Visa or UnionPay card.

Table of Contents

• Campus Crime Stats

College Overview

• Mission & Values
• Strategic Plan
• Business Beyond Boundaries
• Rankings & Awards
• Accreditation
• Merchandise Shop
• 2022-2023 Ourso Bottom Line

Business Education Complex

• Explore the BEC
• College Directory
• Information Technology Helpdesk
• College Leadership
• Dean Llorens

Undergraduate Programs

• BS Accounting
• BS Business Analytics
• BS Economics
• BS Entrepreneurship
• BS General Business
• BS International Trade & Finance
• BS Information Systems & Decision Sciences
• BS Management
• BS Marketing

Online Programs

• Online Programs Overview
• Graduate Programs
• Master of Accountancy
• Master of Analytics
• Master of Business Administration
• Master of Finance
• Master of Financial Economics
• Master of Public Administration
• PhD Accounting
• PhD Economics
• PhD Finance
• PhD Management
• PhD Marketing
• Graduate Certificates

Academic Departments

• Department of Accounting
• Department of Economics
• Department of Finance
• Department of Marketing
• Department of Public Administration
• Flores MBA Program
• Rucks Department of Management
• Stephenson Department of Entrepreneurship & Information Systems

More Offerings 

• LSU Executive Education
• LSU Center for Internal Auditing & Cybersecurity Risk Management

Future Students

• The Ourso Advantage
• Finding A Major
• Discover Baton Rouge
• LSU Admissions

Undergraduate Students

• Academic Advising
• Business Residential College
• College Admissions
• International Experience
• Professional & Career Development
• Scholarships
• Student Experience
• Ourso Outstanding Eight Award

Graduate Students 

• Office of Graduate Business Programs
• Resources for Faculty & Staff

Knowledge Centers & Institutes

• Center for Analytics, Research & Transportation Safety
• Center for Economics, Business, & Policy Research
• Professional Sales Institute
• Real Estate Research Institute
• Stephenson Entrepreneurship Institute
• CEBPR Research & Expertise
• LA Economy Forecasting

Work & Partner with Ourso

• Business & Industry Overview

Professional Development

• Executive Education

Graduate Education

• Hall of Distinction
• Alumni Update

Giving 

• Dean's Circle
• Media Center

Management Researcher Unveils Surprising Insights into Startup Inventions

April 17, 2024

The study delves into the intricate web of invention dynamics, exploring the influence exerted by patents from startups and established firms. Through meticulous analysis of patent citations, which serve as markers of influence and inspiration for future innovations, Jacobs and her co-author, Francisco Polidoro Jr. (Professor, The University of Texas at Austin), uncovered intriguing patterns.

The research reveals that startup patents receive an average of 6% more citations than technologically similar patents from established firms. This surprising finding prompts a deeper investigation into the factors driving the outsized influence of startup inventions. The research also underscores the pivotal role of university endorsements. These endorsements not only boost startups’ credibility and visibility but also highlight the potential for fruitful collaboration between academia and industry in fostering innovation.

Additionally, the study highlights the phenomenon of limited appropriation of inventions by startups, which typically have fewer resources than established firms, leaving room for other firms to capitalize on untapped potential. This trend spurs other firms to build more on innovations from startups.

Lastly, startups’ limited resources make the threat of patent litigation less credible. Instead, patent litigation by startups might draw even more attention to their innovations. Hence, the study finds that startups’ litigiousness further amplifies the influence of their inventions.

While startups’ increased citation rate signifies industry recognition and potential for standard-setting, it also presents a challenge for startups in capturing the total value of their inventions. This delicate balance between influence and value capture is a crucial consideration for startups navigating the competitive landscape of emerging industries.

The researchers emphasize the significance of these findings as a crucial step in understanding the dynamics of innovation within emerging industries. The study opens avenues for further research to explore the mechanisms underlying these differences and their implications for startups, established firms, and the broader industry landscape.

In a rapidly evolving technological landscape, Jacobs’ research offers invaluable insights for organizations and policymakers alike. By unraveling the complex interplay between startups and established firms in shaping the future of industries, this study paves the way for informed decision-making and strategic innovation initiatives. However, one thought remains clear—the collaborative efforts of startups, established firms, and academic institutions are essential for driving the next wave of technological advancements and industry evolution.

Read the Full Study

Full Study Published in Strategic Management Journal

Watch the video abstract

About the Rucks Department of Management

The Rucks Department of Management at LSU's E. J. Ourso College of Business endeavors to prepare students for careers in fields such as international management, human resources, and strategic leadership. A generous donation by LSU alumnus William W. Rucks and his wife, Catherine, has aided the department in securing faculty who are repeatedly recognized for their research and has assisted student-affiliated organizations in achieving top honors nationally. For more information, visit the Rucks Department of Management or call 225-578-6101.

Danielle H. Basilica

Director, External Relations E. J. Ourso College of Business 225-578-8783

POPULAR SEARCHES:

Video Modal

Research and Innovation Management

• Publications
• Legal Notice

Our Core Competences

Research Projects

Innovation Management

We manage innovative processes with a unique set of tools to deploy the creative capabilities of all involved resources. Our creativity introduces new disruptive techniques and how to manage these effectively.

People Network

Our international network is the key to our interdisciplinary dissemination and exploitation activities. Our focus is on long-term success and long-lasting collaborations.

Commitment to Education

We like to share our skills, knowledge and experiences in order to inspire others through our passion for science and innovation. Several educational institutions have accompanied us from the start.

Let's share our passion for research and innovation to broaden our horizon!

Our statistics, our collaborative initiatives and/or partners.

Our Projects

Our Clients

Latest News

We are everywhere.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center