Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:20:38.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic tensions in R&D alliances and the role of inter-organizational management controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2024

Diana Marie De Silva Open the ORCID record for Diana Marie De Silva [Opens in a new window] ,
Lara Agostini ,
Anna Nosella  and
Ernst Verwaal
Diana Marie De Silva*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Vicenza, Italy Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Antwerpen, Belgium
Lara Agostini
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Vicenza, Italy
Anna Nosella
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Vicenza, Italy
Ernst Verwaal
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Antwerpen, Belgium
*
Corresponding author: Diana Marie De Silva; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Access to heterogeneous knowledge resources is suggested in the literature as an important explanation of firm innovation and performance. The exchange of knowledge, however, can be a complex managerial challenge, especially between different epistemic communities. Our research focuses on the concept of epistemic communities to illuminate the complexity of tensions that arise in heterogeneous knowledge exchange in alliances, thus filling a gap in the literature. Using the Straussian grounded theory case study approach, our research investigates the emergence of horizontal, vertical, and inter-organizational epistemic tensions and explores management controls as instruments to guide the knowledge exchange in intermediary-driven research and development alliances. We find that the source of multiple epistemic tensions is rooted in the natural social behaviors of epistemic community members and further shows how these behaviors influence the effective use of inter-organizational management controls in facilitating heterogeneous knowledge exchange.

Keywords

epistemic tensionR&D allianceinter-organizational management controlsepistemic communitygrounded theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Teshome, M. B. (2019). Inter-organizational relationships: Toward a reconceptualization of constructs. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(1), 346–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, P., Song, J., & Grant, R. M. (2002). Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science, 13(2), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. W., & Dekker, H. C. (2014). The role of management controls in transforming firm boundaries and sustaining hybrid organizational forms. Foundations and Trends in Accounting, 8(2), 74–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In Flick, U., Kardorff, E. & Steinke, I. (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 270–275). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34(1), 15–42. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y. R., Phan, P. H., & Choi, J. (2020). Formal governance, interfirm coordination, and performance in partnerships: An empirical investigation of a mediation model. European Management Journal, 38(3), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, M. (2006). On public sector accounting change: Epistemic communities, consultants, naive officials and a reply to Humphrey. European Accounting Review, 15(2), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespin-Mazet, F., Goglio-Primard, K., & Scheid, F. (2013). Open innovation processes within clusters – The role of tertius iugens. Management Decision, 51(8), 1701–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis Cross, M. K. (2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, H. (2004). Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1969 [1972]). The archeology of knowledge, trans. by Sheridan Smith, A. M.. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Fryxell, G. E., Dooley, R. S., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 865–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Athestor.Google Scholar
Grafton, J., & Mundy, J. (2017). Relational contracting and the myth of trust: Control in a co-opetitive setting. Management Accounting Research, 36, 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunwald-Delitz, S., Strauss, E., & Weber, J. (2019). Governing day-to-day interactions in the execution phase of an interfirm collaboration: The role of informal controls. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 16(3), 306–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkanson, L. (2010). The firm as an epistemic community: The knowledge-based view revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1801–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haw, J., Cunningham, S., & O’Doherty, K. C. (2018). Epistemic tensions between people living with asthma and healthcare professionals in clinical encounters. Social Science & Medicine, 208, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtgrave, M., Nienaber, A. M., & Ferreira, C. (2017). Untangling the trust–control nexus in international buyer–supplier exchange relationships: An investigation of the changing world regarding relationship length. European Management Journal, 35(4), 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, H. J., Cooper, K., & Moerman, L. (2011). An epistemic community as influencer and implementer in local government accounting in Australia. Financial Accountability and Management, 27(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., & Santoro, M. D. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Rugelsjoen, B. (2010). Managing alliances with the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review, 88(1–2), 114–120.Google Scholar
Kherrazi, S. (2020). Management control of collaborative innovation: Design and structuring mode. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 848–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leven, P., Holmström, J., & Mathiassen, L. (2014). Managing research and innovation networks: Evidence from a government sponsored cross-industry program. Research Policy, 43(1), 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. J. (2001). The epistemic community. Administration & Society, 32(6), 668–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, A. T. (2005). Managing functional diversity to improve the performance of international joint ventures. Long Range Planning, 38(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mom, T. J. M., van Neerijnen, P., Reinmoeller, P., & Verwaal, E. (2015). Relational capital and individual exploration: Unravelling the influence of goal alignment and knowledge acquisition. Organization Studies, 36(6), 809–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neves, F. R., & Gómez-Villegas, M. (2020). Public sector accounting reform in Latin America and Epistemic Communities: An institutional approach. Revista de Administração Pública, 54, 11–31.Google Scholar
Nosella, A., & Agostini, L. (2019). Paving the way for inter‐organizational management control mechanisms in innovation contexts. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4(28), 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otley, D. T., & Berry, A. J. (1994). Case study research in management accounting and control. Management Accounting Research, 5(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernot, E., & Roodhooft, F. (2014). The impact of inter-organizational management control systems on performance: A retrospective case study of an automotive supplier relationship. International Journal of Production Economics, 158(C), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pina-Stranger, A., & Lazega, E. (2010). Inter-organisational collective learning: The case of biotechnology in France. European Journal of International Management, 4(6), 602–620.Google Scholar
Rivera, L. A. (2008). Managing “spoiled” national identity: War, tourism, and memory in Croatia. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruangpermpool, S., Igel, B., & Siengthai, S. (2020). Trust and dynamic governance mechanisms in the university-industry R&D alliances. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 11(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selviaridis, K., & Wynstra, F. (2015). Performance-based contracting: A literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Production Research, 53(12), 3505–3540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, A. (2003). Idea of education: Epistemic tensions and educational reform. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(32), 3391–3400.Google Scholar
Stouthuysen, K., Slabbinck, H., & Roodhooft, F. (2017). Formal controls and alliance performance: The effects of alliance motivation and informal controls. Management Accounting Research, 37, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouthuysen, K., Van den Abbeele, A., van der Meer-kooistra, J., & Roodhooft, F. (2019). Management control design in long-term buyer-supplier relationships: Unpacking the learning process. Management Accounting Research, 45, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry ( 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How necessary are intermediary organizations in the commercialization of research. European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1365–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, V. K., Benessaiah, K., Warren, S., & Iwaniec, D. (2015). Essential tensions in interdisciplinary scholarship: Navigating challenges in affect, epistemologies, and structure in environment–society research centers. Higher Education, 70(4), 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Meer-kooistra, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2015). Governing product co-development projects: The role of minimal structures. Management Accounting Research, 28, 68–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verwaal, E. (2017). Global outsourcing, explorative innovation and firm financial performance: A knowledge-exchange based perspective. Journal of World Business, 53, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research, design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar