Boundary repair: Science and enterprise at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-402
Author(s):  
Dali Ma

In the 1980s, the Chinese state pushed the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) to establish businesses. Some of these businesses did not engage in any research and development (R&D), and this resulted in scientists having concerns about the boundary around the institutionalizing scientific community. When the state supported CAS’s ‘Knowledge Innovation’ reform in the late 1990s, CAS’s organizing principle became centered on a more narrowly scientific logic, which led to less reliance on business income. Regression analysis indicates that CAS-owned enterprises without R&D were more likely to be discontinued during ‘Knowledge Innovation’. Moreover, businesses having no R&D were more likely to be discontinued (1) if they were making high profits and (2) if they were supervised by an institute in which Academicians had longer tenure, because these conditions heightened science-market conflict.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Erian Armanios ◽  
Charles E. Eesley

How do we reconcile misalignments between a system’s existing normative and cognitive elements and novel regulatory change? Prior work either largely focuses only on regulatory change or analyzes normative and cognitive barriers in parallel to rather than in interaction with regulatory change. Moreover, the institutional entrepreneurship literature that focuses on reconciling such misalignments is predominantly centered on the tactics of entrepreneurs rather than the support provided by institutional carriers. We, therefore, use the case of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Knowledge Innovation Program (KIP) to better understand these neglected facets of institutional change. Through a mixed methods approach, we posit and find support for two key mechanisms that support regulatory change. First, institutional carriers (e.g., CAS institutes) clarify the market relevance of technical knowledge, linking cognitive support to regulatory change. Second, institutional carriers (e.g., science parks) create shared standards that could not occur otherwise, linking normative support to regulatory change. Finally, these changes to institutions seem particularly associated with more nascent clusters. Our study contributes to studies at the nexus between institutional change and entrepreneurship by highlighting the role of linking cognitive and normative support to regulatory changes aimed at increasing entrepreneurship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document