John King / Research centres / 1 Research centres Scientists are required to produce results that are novel and

compatible with existing priorities and procedures. In consequence, academic work generates high task uncertainty and scientists are afforded considerable freedom as to how they complete their tasks (Whitley 2000), whilst the quality and integrability of their output is ensured by normative pressure which results from a strong orientation to the opinion of other scientists. Academicians have thus adopted a reputational form of work organisation that differs significantly from the organisation of industry or the professions. When scientific knowledge production became increasingly diversified and specialised in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, academic disciplines and their local manifestations as university departments became dominant in the organisation of academic work. As the labour market status of scientists is defined by their reputation within a discipline (Whitley 2000), evidenced by their publication record and bestowed by their department, the disciplinedepartment nexus is a powerfully entrenched custodian of training, employment and reputation in which knowledge is created in 'mode 1' -- in contrast to an alternative, transdisciplinary, and externally accountable 'mode 2' (Gibbons 1994). Gibbons et al. (1994) identify a trend towards 'mode 2' research, driven by socioeconomic factors including the massification of higher education and by government demands for the public evaluation of the impact of funding academic work. As the establishment of new fields and ways of conducting research generates competition for resources, threatening the control of the current academic elite (Whitley 2000), the incompatibility of external stakeholder demands and internal disciplinary pressures may be expected to generate conflicts and tensions. Within universities, university-industry collaborative research centres and interdisciplinary policy institutes which maintain a Janusian orientation to traditional disciplinary reputational systems and to wider social and economic concerns may be viewed as hybrid or boundary organisations, exposed to the clash of opposing modes of production. At a time when universities are coming under increased pressure to address societal 'grand challenges' and increase the use of their research by industry, government and civil society, research centres which act as boundary organisations promise to improve the flow of knowledge and stabilise the interface between academic disciplines and wider society. "By responding to social demands for relevant knowledge, . . . [centres] have served to buffer the academic core of the university from the distortions that those demands would undoubtedly

John King / Research centres / 2 cause if they had to be met within a departmental context" (Geiger 1990, p.17). In this essay, I review the literature on university research centres, paying particular attention to collaborative and multidisciplinary centres, and discuss the nature and challenges of hybridised organisations existing at the boundary of functional domains.

Origins and functions Scholars writing about the organisation and administration of academic work have described the origins, functions and structure of 'organised research units' or university research centres (Ikenberry & Friedman 1972; Stahler & Tash 1994) which featured strongly in the post-war expansion of universities in the United States (Geiger 1990): "the most successful universities in terms of research funding expansion have largely depended upon research centers as a major vehicle for enhancing their research productivity" (Stahler & Tash 1994). Bozeman and Boardman define a university research centre as "a formal organizational entity within a university that exists chiefly to serve a research mission, is set apart from the departmental organization, and includes researchers from more than one department" (Bozeman & C. Boardman 2003, p.17). In the social sciences, Mallon uses the terms 'center' and 'institute' to refer to "non-departmental organizational units that have a primary mission of research" (Mallon 2004, p.64). The Gale Research Centers and Services Directory (2009) lists more than 15,900 university-based and non-profit research centres in the US, with an international companion volume listing a further 13,160 centres in 130 countries; government programs to support and expand research centres exist throughout the EU (Gray et al. 2012). Many organisational entities described by their participants as research centres are little more than badging or rebranding exercises, described by Ikenberry & Friedman as 'shadow' units -- as opposed to 'standard' units with stable independent budgets, full time staff, articulated missions and some external funding, and 'adaptive' units which possess little core infrastructure or dedicated staff and redefine their goals in response to funding opportunities (Stahler & Tash 1994). As a result, some authors have for analysis purposes limited their definition of research units to centres which employ a minimum number of staff and work across multiple disciplines (Rogers 2012). Etzkowitz argues that research centres played a pivotal role in the collectivisation of science (Etzkowitz & Kemelgor 1998), and an emerging 'science of team science' research area (Falk-Krzesinski et al. 2011) examines initiatives and infrastructure which have been

John King / Research centres / 3 designed to support collaborative academic work, the impact of interpersonal processes, leadership styles and systemic contexts and cross-disciplinary training (Stokols et al. 2008), with a particular focus on the translation and application of findings. Scholars have also examined the role of research centres in the establishment of new scientific fields. Jordan (2011) argues that creating interdisciplinary research centres assists isolated researchers to develop sustainable research collaborations. Clausen et al. (2012) survey research units in emerging fields to ask what motivated their creation, which factors support their development, how they are funded and what their organisational status is.

Institutionalisation and innovation policy One line of academic inquiry examines the sustainability of research centres and the degree to which they have become institutionalised within universities. Larson & Long (2000) are concerned with how academic centres can become institutionalised without losing their distinctive qualities; as Mosey et al. (2012) discover, institutes in UK universities tend to regress towards traditional peer-reviewed research and teaching once a period of initial funding ends. Youtie et al. (Youtie et al. 2006) are concerned that infertility research centres have not become fully institutionalised in the USA, arguing that they need to develop stronger identities. Gray et al. (2012) examine survival patterns in collaborative research centres, identifying several factors which may lead to early closure including the absence of doctoral programmes, poor leadership, a lack of transition planning or weak institutional support. Conversely, they argue that strong leadership can help research centres to survive a funding hiatus and navigate organisational transitions. University structures enable and constrain the action of semi-autonomous research centres; Mosey (2012) contrasts the cases of two research institutes which responded differently to the same academic regime, leading to the survival of one and the closure of the other. The surviving institute adapted its mission to gain funding from its home department, reporting that "there is only one way to survive and that is to bring in income" (Mosey et al. 2012, p.597). Research centres derive legitimacy from the resources they control (Ikenberry & Friedman 1978 in S 2008). Bozeman & Boardman (Bozeman & C. Boardman 2003) focus on the role of research centre leadership, emphasising that the most important task is to assemble the right staff -- without being able to draw upon the resources that departmental heads enjoy. Hansson & Mnsted explore this as organisational entrepreneurship or network organising by 'charismatic' research directors (Mnsted & Hansson 2010) which results in the

John King / Research centres / 4 construction of new research groups with 'open boundaries' to other organisations (Hansson & Mnsted 2008). Following this theme, Gktepe-Hultn (2008) argues that leading scientists can institutionalise an entrepeneurial culture within their research groups by imprinting their behaviours on others. Bartholomew Craig et al. (2009) derive fifteen dimensions of research centre leadership performance from a series of interviews with faculty members. Sundstrom & Gray (2010) examine the diffusion of innovative leadership practices across government sponsored research centres and collaborative research programmes. Scholars have also examined the development of research centres in response to improvement-oriented evaluation (Gray 2008) and have applied an organisational learning perspective on universityindustry partnerships (Cyert & Goodman 1997). Research centres have been discussed as a manifestation of structural changes within universities. Morris (Morris 2002) writes about the restructuring of departments in UK universities as a response to internal and external pressures, and several authors examine the trend toward interdisciplinary research centres in US research universities (Brint 2005; S 2007). Interviews conducted by Taylor (2006) reveal that UK universities have responded to their changing environment by establishing research centres which enable them to flexibly manage diverse academic needs and which confer a degree of organisational autonomy. Several authors discuss research centres from the perspective of university research management. Mallon (2004) argues that research centres contribute to the disjointedness of university governance. S (2008) describes the characteristics of research centres and administrative and organisational issues including their funding and sustainability, autonomy and their relations with academic units. Rogers (2012) -- interpreting research centres as agents of change within local academic contexts and as transitional entities which are part of a wider agenda for change -- reports the results of a survey instrument which suggests widening gaps between centre-affiliated and non-affiliated personnel. Several authors have focused on the role of research centres from the perspective of science and innovation policy. Examining the US National Science Foundation's engineering research centre programme, Bozeman & Boardman conclude that "the past three decades of U.S. science and technology policy have not seen an institutional change of greater importance" than the establishment of collaborative research centres (Bozeman & C. Boardman 2004, p.365). Etzkowitz (2003) likens research centres to entrepreneurial firms competing for grant funding. while Cruz-Castro et al. (2012) use institutional theory and the resource-based view to examine how research centres have responded to government policy change in Spain, finding that whilst some isomorphism is identifiable, considerable

John King / Research centres / 5 heterogeneity remains. Landry & Amara (Landry & Amara 1998) examine the relationship between universityindustry collaboration and university structuration from a transaction cost perspective. Popp Berman (Berman 2012) develops an evolutionary theory of 'practice selection' to explain how academic science has adopted an logic of entrepreneurialism without requiring the action of institutional entrepreneurs consciously seeking to modify institutionalised practices. She views collaborative research centres as one of three practices - the others being faculty entrepreneurship in the biosciences and university patenting -which were primed for 'selection' once a wider policy discourse of support for innovation enabled university entrepreneurialism to achieve a kind of critical mass. Scholars also explore the role of research centres in regional and economic development (Clark 2010; Roessner et al. 2010) and Hayton et al. investigate the motivation of firms that join consortial research centres (Hayton et al. 2010). Roper & Hewitt-Dundas (2013) compare university-based and company-based collaborative research centres. Jacobson at al. (2004) point to the structural antecedents of knowledge transfer, suggesting that research centres are important in facilitating relevant research. Boardman explores the effect of research centre membership on researchers' interactions with industry using a 'scientific and human capital' approach which emphasises the importance of academics' network ties (P. C. Boardman 2009). Two recent special issues of innovation policy journals discuss research centres as a strategy for bridging knowledge translation gaps between universities and industry. In The Journal of Technology Transfer, Boardman & Gray succinctly summarise research into collaborative research centres from the perspective of government policies, industry strategies and as organisational and interorganisational phenomena, concluding that they are "critically important collaborative vehicles" (C. Boardman & Gray 2010, p.456). The special issue of Science and Public Policy takes a comparative perspective toward national innovation policies which shape cross-sector research collaboration, identifying structural variations and organisational pressures driven by policy change (Turpin & FernndezEsquinas 2011). In the same issue, Howells & Edler (2011) view structural innovations -such as the creation of collaborative research centres -- as attempts to tackle system failure in innovation systems, observing that such innovations are difficult in practice and often rely upon simplistic assumptions about networks and interaction. Describing problems which result from an unravelling of the industryuniversitygovernment 'triple helix' (Etzkowitz &

John King / Research centres / 6 Leydesdorff 2000), Gray et al. present case studies of the failure of collaborative research centres, identifying contributing factors, themes and learning points (Gray et al. 2011). Collaborative research centres are one of many different forms of organisation which act as intermediaries in the innovation process. Howells (2006) lists terms which have been used to describe intermediaries in studies which examine innovation intermediation: third parties, brokers, intermediary agencies, bridge builders, bricoleurs, superstructure organisations, knowledge brokers, intermediary level bodies, technology brokers, regional institutions, knowledge intermediaries and boundary organisations.

Boundary organisations and hybrids The concept of the boundary organisation -- as opposed to the pre-existing sociological concept of the boundary-spanning organisation -- is introduced by Guston (1999) who explores the relationship between government and universities from a science policy perspective, examining funding bodies and technology transfer offices (Guston 2001). Boundary organisations are formal organisations which stabilise the boundaries of and mediate between science and policy communities, generating changes in the culture and practices of each by supporting the use of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer 1989) and standardised packages composed of sets of boundary objects and scientific practices (Fujimura 1992). Boundary organisations involve participants from both communities and are accountable to both (Guston 2001). S theorises research centres as boundary organisations which help researchers work across institutional and national boundaries and manage conflicts between stakeholders (S & Oleksiyenko 2010). The strains and conflicts that boundary organisations manage are not dissipated but are internalised within the organisation, as "in practice the boundary continues to be negotiated within the confines of the boundary organisation" (Guston 1999, p.91). The boundary organisation provides a dialectical space or 'trading zone' (Galison 1997 in Lam 2007) for participants to agree local protocols and practices of "governance, ownership, membership, and control over production" (O'Mahony & Bechky 2008, p.450) in order to enable the co-production of knowledge and social order (Guston 2001). This suggests that unacknowledged issues of power and domination may be involved where stakeholders have unequal status and resources, although this not been extensively explored in the literature. A failure to fully develop and institutionalise local practices may lead to problems, such as the

John King / Research centres / 7 'vicious circles' of management decision-making which can occur as as a result of hypersensitivity to contradictory stakeholder evaluations (Youtie & Corley 2011). Miller argues that boundary organisation theory fails to pay sufficient attention to the considerable within-group differences in the institutions of science and politics, the fuzzy border between the two, and the dynamic nature of governance arrangements; rather, boundary organisations exist to "establish and maintain a productive tension between the multiple, diverse forms of life in contemporary societies" (Miller 2001, p.487). Parker & Crona (2012) examine the tensions resulting from boundary negotiations within university research centres, arguing that rather than the clear dichotomy supposed by boundary organisation theory, university-based centres work in a hybrid space where different activities and goals mingle. Rather than trying to achieve stability, they suggest that 'adaptive boundary management' is required to reconcile incompatible stakeholder demands. Garrett-Jones et al. (2010) discuss cooperative research centres as hybrid organisations, a specific form of inter-organisational relationship. In economic theory, hybrid organisations are a class of governance structure which stand between organisational hierarchies and markets (Mnard 2004). Hybrid organisational forms enable more stable institutional arrangements than can be managed by traditional research project teams, providing co-ordination over a broader range of tasks and more diverse participants (Turpin & Fernndez-Esquinas 2011). Hybridisation can occur when an organisation establishes a new workplace, concomitant with new primary and administrative tasks, in response to the demands placed upon it by newly invented products or services (McKelvey 1982). Drawing upon Latour's vision of modernity as the "proliferation of hybrids", Miller (2001, p.486) writes: To maintain these productive and dynamic relationships, boundary organizations need to be able to manage hybrids--that is, to put scientific and political elements together, take them apart, establish and maintain boundaries between different forms of life, and coordinate activities taking place in multiple domains. These four elements--hybridization, deconstruction, boundary work, and cross-domain orchestration--make up what I term "hybrid management." In reviewing and synthesising literature in the innovation intermediation field, Howells (2006) identifies four main functions and processes undertaken by intermediaries: articulating and diagnosing issues, bridging unconnected groups, information scanning and exchange, and storing and combining knowledge.

John King / Research centres / 8 Blurred and permeable boundaries support hybrid modes of employment relationship which offer external access to the tacit expertise of scientists, who must remain connected to their scientific network in order to update their knowledge and remain competitive in their careers (Lam 2007). Etzkowitz et al. (2000) identify 'hybrid firms' as university spin-offs which reside within the university, with staff occupying dual roles by taking employment with the firm whilst maintaining an academic role in the university.

Role strain Research centre personnel are often required to maintain double roles by simultaneously working for the centre and for their home department and may suffer from 'role strain' as a result: Bunton & Mallon find that affiliates are less satisfied with their mix of activities and workload than non-affiliated staff (Bunton & Mallon 2007) and Heathington et al. {1978, in Bunton:2007dw} identify the potential for conflict between centre affiliates and departmental heads or faculty deans. Boardman & Bozeman (2007) find that role strain is more likely to be experienced in the research centres with more formally demarcated boundaries with academic departments.

Boundary work Tuunainen (2005) describes the boundary work undertaken by a head of department -and encouraged by a non-affiliated faculty member -- to enforce a separation between the traditional academic activities of teaching and research for public benefit and research for private consumption. Boundary work was originally described as the "attribution of selected characteristics to the institution of science (i.e., to its practitioners, methods, stock of knowledge, values and work organization) for purposes of constructing a social boundary that distinguishes some intellectual activities as 'non-science'" (Gieryn 1983, p.782). In order to protect the special status and funding of science, academics patrol its borders, making the space inhabited by externally focused research centres contested and contingent (S & Oleksiyenko 2010): in the case studied by Tuunainen (2005), local micro-level boundary maintenance processes and the resulting interpersonal conflicts eventually lead to the 'purification' (Latour 1993) of the hybrid firm into a wholly private entity.

Academics working in research centres

John King / Research centres / 9 Several articles compare centre-affiliated staff with their non-affiliated peers by examining their productivity and job satisfaction (Bunton & Mallon 2007; PonomariovBoardman, P.C. 2010) and collaborative behaviours and patterns (P. C. Boardman & Corley 2008; PonomariovBoardman, P.C. 2010). Although some research suggests that affiliated personnel spend more time on research and less on teaching (Stahler & Tash 1994), others fail to find statistically significant differences but do find that centre affiliates produce more publications than non-affiliated staff (Bunton & Mallon 2007), spend more time on grant writing and external engagement (Corley & Gaughan 2005) and collaborate more with researchers from their group (Rogers 2012). Coberly & Gray (2010) explore organisational, disciplinary and individual factors that support the job satisfaction of research centre personnel, who tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and less concerned about government influence over research (Rogers 2012). Scholars also focus on the effect of changes to the organisation of scientific work on academic careers. Dietz & Bozeman (2005) conclude that the growth in number and importance of research centres has led to greater heterogeneity in scientific careers. Whilst concern has been raised that scientists directly hired into a university-industry collaborative research centre risk being outside the normal scientific channels of recognition and promotion (Turpin et al. 2011; Stahler & Tash 1994), most centre affiliates do not see their membership as being a hindrance to their career (Bunton & Mallon 2007), although the values of junior staff seeking basic science publications in order to achieve tenure may not be aligned with the applied research goals of research centres (Boardman, P.C. & Ponomariov 2007). Scholars have also explored the relationships between members of research centres. Davis & Bryant (2010) use leader-member exchange theory to explore the relationship between research centre leaders and members and Garrett-Jones et al . (2010) explore trust, governance and competition between collaborating organisations from the perspective of individual members.

Social science Research which focuses on university-based social science research centres is limited. A whole-population survey of US public policy institutes (Melnick 1999) offers an overview of these relatively under-studied organisational units, and descriptions may be found buried in the political science literature concerned with think tanks or social policy, such as Pautz's

John King / Research centres / 10 (2012) sketches of LSE's Centre for Economic Performance and Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion. In describing the changing role of intellectuals as mediators, Osborne (2004) suggests that research centres are becoming enrolled as 'think-tank-like institutions' by external actors such as government, research councils and other think-tanks. A much more extensive literature discusses the establishment of think-tanks outside formal university structures; for example, Dench offers a biographical account of the role of Michael Young in establishing the Institute of Community Studies (Dench 2008).

References

Berman, E.P., 2012. Explaining the move toward the market in US academic science: how institutional logics can change without institutional entrepreneurs. Theory and Society, 41(3), pp.261299. Boardman, C. & Bozeman, B., 2007. Role Strain in University Research Centers. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), pp.430463. Boardman, C. & Gray, D., 2010. The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.445459. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y. Boardman, P.C., 2009. Government centrality to universityindustry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, 38(10), pp.15051516. Boardman, P.C. & Corley, E.A., 2008. University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), pp.900913. Boardman, P.C. & Ponomariov, B.L., 2007. Reward systems and NSF University Research Centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists' valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), pp.5170. Bozeman, B. & Boardman, C., 2003. Managing the New Multipurpose, Multidiscipline University Research Center: Institutional Innovation in the Academic Community | IBM Center for the Business of Government. Bozeman, B. & Boardman, C., 2004. The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the UniversityIndustry Research Revolution: A Brief History Featuring an Interview with Erich Bloch. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), pp.365375. Brint, S., 2005. Creating the future: New directions in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1), pp.2350. Bunton, S.A. & Mallon, W.T., 2007. The Impact of Centers and Institutes on Faculty Life: Findings from a Study of Life Sciences Faculty at Research-Intensive Universities

John King / Research centres / 11 Medical Schools. Innovative Higher Education, 32(2), pp.93103. Clark, J., 2010. Coordinating a conscious geography: the role of research centers in multiscalar innovation policy and economic development in the US and Canada. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.460474. Clausen, T., Fagerberg, J. & Gulbrandsen, M., 2012. Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields. Research Policy, 41(7), pp.12491261. Coberly, B.M. & Gray, D.O., 2010. Cooperative research centers and faculty satisfaction: a multi-level predictive analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.547565. Corley, E. & Gaughan, M., 2005. Scientists Participation in University Research Centers: What are the Gender Differences? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), pp.371 381. Craig, S.B. et al., 2009. Leadership in university-based cooperative research centres A qualitative investigation of performance dimensions. Industry and Higher Education, 23(5), pp.367377. Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menndez, L. & Martnez, C., 2012. Research centers in transition: Patterns of convergence and diversity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), pp.1842. Cyert, R.M. & Goodman, P.S., 1997. Creating effective university-industry alliances: an organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics. Davis, D.D. & Bryant, J.L., 2010. Leader-member exchange, trust, and performance in national science foundation industry/university cooperative research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.511526. Dench, G., 2008. Family, community and politics: The fertile legacy of Michael Young. Critical Social Policy, 28(3), pp.335348. Dietz, J.S. & Bozeman, B., 2005. Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), pp.349 367. Etzkowitz, H., 2003. Research groups as quasi-firms: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), pp.109121. Etzkowitz, H. & Kemelgor, C., 1998. The role of research centres in the collectivisation of academic science. Minerva, 36(3), pp.271288. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation : from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university industry government relations. Science And Technology, pp.109123. Etzkowitz, H. et al., 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), pp.313 330. Falk-Krzesinski, H.J. et al., 2011. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science.

John King / Research centres / 12 Research Evaluation, 20(2), pp.143156. Fujimura, J.H., 1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and translation.. In A. Pickering, ed. Science as Practice and Culture. The University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, pp. 168211. Gale, 2009. Research Centers and Services Directory, Gale. Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T. & Diment, K., 2010. Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.527546. Geiger, R.L., 1990. Organized Research Units--Their Role in the Development of University Research. The Journal of Higher Education. Gibbons, M., 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, SAGE. Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), pp.781795. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2095325. Gktepe-Hultn, D., 2008. Academic inventors and research groups: Entrepreneurial cultures at universities. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), pp.657667. Gray, D. et al., 2011. When Triple Helix unravels: A multi-case analysis of failures in industryuniversity cooperative research centres. Industry and Higher Education, 25(5), pp.333345. Gray, D.O., 2008. Making team science better: Applying improvement-oriented evaluation principles to evaluation of cooperative research centers. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), pp.7387. Gray, D.O. et al., 2012. Research Center Sustainability and Survival: Case Studies of Fidelity, Reinvention and Leadership of Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers, Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4), pp.399408. Guston, D.H., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The rle of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), pp.87111. Hansson, F. & Mnsted, M., 2008. Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research. Higher Education, 55(6), pp.651670. Hayton, J.C., Sehili, S. & Scarpello, V., 2010. Why do firms join consortial research centers? An empirical examination of firm, industry and environmental antecedents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.494510. Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research

John King / Research centres / 13 Policy, 35(5), pp.715728. Howells, J. & Edler, J., 2011. Structural innovations: towards a unified perspective? Science and Public Policy, 38(2), pp.157167. Ikenberry, S.O. & Friedman, R.C., 1972. Beyond academic departments, Jacobson, N., Butterill, D. & Goering, P., 2004. Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities. Science Communication, 25(3), pp.246259. Jordan, C.E., 2011. Building academic research centers to advance research on violence against women: An empirical foundation. Violence Against Women, 17(9), pp.1123 1136. Lam, A., 2007. Knowledge Networks and Careers: Academic Scientists in IndustryUniversity Links. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), pp.9931016. Landry, R. & Amara, N., 1998. The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy, 27(9), pp.901913. Larson, R.S. & Long, R.F., 2000. Academic Centers: Moving Beyond the Periphery. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 5(2), pp.3947. Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press. Mallon, W., 2004. Disjointed governance in university centers and institutes. New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), pp.6174. McKelvey, B., 1982. Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Melnick, R., 1999. University Policy Centers and Institutes: The Think Tank as Public Service Function., 10(1), pp.919. Mnard, C., 2004. The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift fr die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, pp.345 376. Miller, C., 2001. Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime. Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4), pp.478500. Morris, N., 2002. The developing role of departments. Research Policy, 31(5), pp.817833. Mosey, S., Wright, M. & Clarysse, B., 2012. Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), pp.587607. Mnsted, M. & Hansson, F., 2010. Creating Space for Research: The Charismatic Entrepreneur as Research Director. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), pp.4756.

John King / Research centres / 14 O'Mahony, S. & Bechky, B.A., 2008. Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3 SPEC. ISS.), pp.422459. Osborne, T., 2004. On mediators: Intellectuals and the ideas trade in the knowledge society. Economy and Society, 33(4), pp.430447. Parker, J. & Crona, B., 2012. On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), pp.262289. Pautz, H., 2012. Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy. pp.1245. Ponomariov, B.L.Boardman, P.C., 2010. Influencing scientists' collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), pp.613624. Roessner, D., Manrique, L. & Park, J., 2010. The economic impact of engineering research centers: preliminary results of a pilot study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), pp.475493. Rogers, J.D., 2012. Research centers as agents of change in the contemporary academic landscape: their role and impact in HBCU, EPSCoR, and Majority universities. Research Evaluation, 21(1), pp.1532. Roper, S. & Hewitt-Dundas, N., 2013. Catalysing open innovation through publicly-funded R&D: A comparison of university and company-based research centres. International Small Business Journal, 31(3), pp.275295. S, C.M., 2008. University-based research centers: Characteristics, organization, and administrative implications. The Journal of Research Administration, 39(1), pp.3240. S, C.M., 2007. Interdisciplinary strategies in U.S. research universities. Higher Education, 55(5), pp.537552. S, C.M. & Oleksiyenko, A., 2010. Between the local and the global: organized research units and international collaborations in the health sciences. Higher Education, 62(3), pp.367382. Stahler, G.J. & Tash, W.R., 1994. Centers and institutes in the research university: issues, problems, and prospects. The Journal of Higher Education, pp.540554. Star, S.L. & Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, `Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp.387420. Stokols, D. et al., 2008. The Science of Team Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), pp.S77S89. Sundstrom, E. & Gray, D.O., 2010. Fostering Team Science: Innovative Leadership Practices in NSF Industry/University Research Cooperative Centers. p.323. Taylor, J., 2006. Big is Beautiful. Organisational Change in Universities in the United Kingdom: New Models of Institutional Management and the Changing Role of Academic

John King / Research centres / 15 Staff. Higher Education in Europe, 31(3), pp.251273. Turpin, T. & Fernndez-Esquinas, M., 2011. Introduction to special issue: The policy rationale for cross-sector research collaboration and contemporary consequences. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), pp.8286. Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S. & Woolley, R., 2011. Cross-sector research collaboration in Australia: the Cooperative Research Centres Program at the crossroads. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), pp.8798. Tuunainen, J., 2005. Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science, 35(2), pp.173210. Whitley, R., 2000. The Intellectual And Social Organisation Of The Sciences, Youtie, J. & Corley, E.A., 2011. Federally sponsored multidisciplinary research centers: Learning, evaluation, and vicious circles. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), pp.1320. Youtie, J., Libaers, D. & Bozeman, B., 2006. Institutionalization of university research centers: The case of the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research. Technovation, 26(9), pp.10551063.