From Silos to Synergy: Collaborative Laboratories and the Transformation of Knowledge Production
Downloads
The increasing societal importance of cutting-edge science and technology calls for a closer examination of public policies' influence on the evolving dynamics of knowledge production and transfer. This focus is especially pertinent in peripheral economies such as Portugal, where persistent structural challenges include the limited integration of highly qualified human resources within the economy. The purpose of this research is to investigate how the knowledge coproduction and transfer dynamics of ‘Collaborative Laboratories’ (CoLABs), a new form of intermediary organization in Portugal, differ from those of more traditional science-industry interface set-ups, in the Portuguese context. This research employed a deductive, quantitative, multiple-case, cross-sectional design, utilizing scientific publications as collaboration indicators and applying Social Network Analysis to map and analyze the knowledge coproduction and transfer networks of CoLABs in Portugal, comparing them to Technology Centers. The results reveal that CoLABs prioritize the creation of flexible collaboration networks and the broad coproduction and dissemination of knowledge. CoLABs are found to function as value-occupying hub organizations and serve as crucial bridging entities and are characterized by high connectivity, diverse collaboration, and cohesive research and innovation communities. The need for public agencies and CoLAB governance structures to devise strategies to enhance communication and collaboration within the CoLAB network is highlighted. This is the first study to investigate CoLABs as a new form of intermediary organization in Portugal, specifically examining how their knowledge coproduction and transfer dynamics differ from more traditional science-industry interface set-ups in the Portuguese context.
Downloads
[1] Howlett, M. (2019). The Policy Design Primer: Choosing the Right Tools for the Job. Routledge, London, United kingdom. doi:10.4324/9780429401046.
[2] Capano, G., Pritoni, A., & Vicentini, G. (2020). Do policy instruments matter? Governments’ choice of policy mix and higher education performance in Western Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 40(3), 375–401. doi:10.1017/S0143814X19000047.
[3] Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2012). Measuring the performance of public-private partnerships: A systematic method for distinguishing outputs from outcomes. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(4), 769–786. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576350410.
[4] Weaver, R. K. (2015). Getting People to Behave: Research Lessons for Policy Makers. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 806–816. doi:10.1111/puar.12412.
[5] Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. Carrots, sticks and sermons, Routledge, Milton Park, United Kingdom.
[6] Salamon, L.M. (2010). Third-Party Government. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. Springer, New York, United States. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4_129.
[7] Anrah, S. (2013). University-Industry Interorganisational Relationships for Technology/Knowledge Transfer: A Systematic Literature Review. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-34. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2241333.
[8] Camerani, R., Rotolo, D., & Grassano, N. (2018). Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal, SWPS 2018-21. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3276054.
[9] Cooke, P. (2002). Biotechnology clusters as regional, sectoral innovation systems. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 8–37. doi:10.1177/016001760202500102.
[10] Gama, R., Barros, C., & Fernandes, R. (2018). Science Policy, R&D and Knowledge in Portugal: an Application of Social Network Analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 329–358. doi:10.1007/s13132-017-0447-3.
[11] Thomas, A., & Paul, J. (2019). Knowledge transfer and innovation through university-industry partnership: an integrated theoretical view. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 436–448. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1552485.
[12] de Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2019). Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1236–1255. doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x.
[13] Maresova, P., Stemberkova, R., & Fadeyi, O. (2019). Models, processes, and roles of universities in technology transfer management: A systematic review. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 67. doi:10.3390/admsci9030067.
[14] Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., Schmid, L., Tribaldos, T., & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017.
[15] Bukhari, E., Dabic, M., Shifrer, D., Daim, T., & Meissner, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial university: The relationship between smart specialization innovation strategies and university-region collaboration. Technology in Society, 65, 101560. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101560.
[16] Pikkarainen, M., Ervasti, M., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2017). Orchestration Roles to Facilitate Networked Innovation in a Healthcare Ecosystem. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(9), 30–43. doi:10.22215/timreview/1104.
[17] Xie, H., Guo, M., & Yang, Y. (2024). Exploring the processes and mechanisms by which nonprofit organizations orchestrate global innovation networks: A case study of the COVAX program. Heliyon, 10(5), 27098. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27098.
[18] Van Der Valk, T., & Gijsbers, G. (2010). The use of social network analysis in innovation studies: Mapping actors and technologies. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 5–17. doi:10.5172/impp.12.1.5.
[19] Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., & Siokas, E. (2013). Twenty-five years of science-industry collaboration: The emergence and evolution of policy-driven research networks across Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 873–895. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9278-3.
[20] Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York, United States. doi:10.4324/9780203929605.
[21] Bandelow, N. C., Hornung, J., Schröder, I., & Vogeler, C. S. (2022). Localities and infrastructures in science, technology, and environmental policy making. Review of Policy Research, 39(2), 118–119. doi:10.1111/ropr.12471.
[22] Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
[23] Mazzucato, M. (2019). Governing missions in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
[24] Stezano, F. (2018). The Role of Technology Centers as Intermediary Organizations Facilitating Links for Innovation: Four Cases of Federal Technology Centers in Mexico. Review of Policy Research, 35(4), 642–666. doi:10.1111/ropr.12293.
[25] Döme, V., Cycak, W., & Matus, K. J. (2025). Variations in innovation strategies for sustainable development: Sustainable innovation policy instrument mixes of ten small OECD countries across five sectors. Research Policy, 54(6), 105234. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2025.105234.
[26] Kirs, M., Lember, V., & Karo, E. (2021). Technology transfer in economic periphery: Emerging patterns and policy challenges. Review of Policy Research, 38(6), 677–706. doi:10.1111/ropr.12437.
[27] Reis, A., Heitor, M., Amaral, M., & Mendonça, J. (2016). Revisiting industrial policy: Lessons learned from the establishment of an automotive OEM in Portugal. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 195–205. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.006.
[28] Santos, J. M., Horta, H., & Heitor, M. (2016). Too many PhDs? An invalid argument for countries developing their scientific and academic systems: The case of Portugal. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 352–362. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.013.
[29] Ferreira, A., & Teixeira, A. L. (2016). Intra- and extra-organisational foundations of innovation processes - The information and communication technology sector under the crisis in Portugal. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(6), 1650056. doi:10.1142/S1363919616500560.
[30] Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
[31] Amante, S., & Rodrigues, H. (2025). Advancing internationalisation at the Polytechnic University of Viseu: Transforming challenges into opportunities with short-term mobilities. Research in Globalization, 11, 100292. doi:10.1016/j.resglo.2025.100292.
[32] Liagouras, G. (2010). What can we learn from the failures of technology and innovation policies in the European periphery? European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(3), 331–349. doi:10.1177/0969776409356214.
[33] Tiits, M., Kalvet, T., & Mürk, I. (2015). Smart specialisation in cohesion economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(2), 296–319. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0239-6.
[34] Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34–49. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008.
[35] Blažek, J., & Csank, P. (2016). Can emerging regional innovation strategies in less developed European regions bridge the main gaps in the innovation process? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(6), 1095–1114. doi:10.1177/0263774X15601680.
[36] Wei, S. X., Wang, H. Y., Deng, S., Wang, W., & Ye, F. Y. (2025). Measuring the university-industry-government relations synthesized by the Triple Helix and the diversity. Journal of Informetrics, 19(3), 101686. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2025.101686.
[37] Hepburn, N., & Wolfe, D. A. (2014). Technology and Innovation Centres: Lessons from Germany, the UK and the USA. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
[38] Ferreira, L., & Matias, R. (2021). Mapping Competences of the Technological Interface Centers to Support the Transition of Portuguese Companies Toward the Circular Economy. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2. doi:10.3389/frsus.2021.739052.
[39] Steenhuis, H.-J., & Gray, D. O. (2006). Cooperative research and technology dynamics: the role of research strategy development in NSF Science and Technology Centres. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 5(1/2), 56. doi:10.1504/ijttc.2006.008653.
[40] Cherney, A. (2015). Academic–industry collaborations and knowledge co-production in the social sciences. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 1003–1016. doi:10.1177/1440783313492237.
[41] Pinto, E. B., & Fernandes, G. (2021). Collaborative R&D the key cooperation domain for university-industry partnerships sustainability - Position paper. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.109.
[42] Howard-Grenville, J., & Spengler, J. (2022). Surfing the Grand Challenges Wave in Management Scholarship: How Did We Get Here, Where Are We Now, and What’S Next? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 79, 279–295. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000079025.
[43] Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S. E., Galvão, A. R., Carlucci, D., Falcão, P. F., & Ferreira, F. A. F. (2019). Analyzing technology transfer offices’ influence for entrepreneurial universities in Portugal. Management Decision, 57(12), 3473–3491. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2018-1200.
[44] Vedovello, C. (2000). Science Parks and university-industry links: A comparative analysis between a British and a Portuguese experience. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 1(4), 358–374. doi:10.1504/IJSTM.2000.001585.
[45] Santos, A., Edwards, J., & Neto, P. (2023). Does Smart Specialisation improve any innovation subsidy effect on regional productivity? The Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 31(4), 758–779. doi:10.1080/09654313.2022.2073787.
[46] Gui, Q., Xu, W., Jiang, S., Yu, Z., & Guo, W. (2025). Unpacking the dynamics of international research collaboration network: Structural effects and dyadic effects. Technology in Society, 82, 102954. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102954.
[47] Hung, W. C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 92(1), 63–73. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0726-5.
[48] Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 102(1), 701–725. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z.
[49] Olmeda-Gómez, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M. A., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). Analysis of research collaboration between universities and private companies in Spain based on joint scientific publications. Information Research, 20(4), 1–8.
[50] Paquin, R. L., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2013). Blind Dates and Arranged Marriages: Longitudinal Processes of Network Orchestration. Organization Studies, 34(11), 1623–1653. doi:10.1177/0170840612470230.
[51] Wang, T., Zhao, X., & Wang, X. (2024). Making platform firms’ competitive advantage sustainable: The roles of network orchestration capabilities and collaborative innovation. Journal of Business Research, 183, 114854. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114854.
[52] Rui, H., & Bruyaka, O. (2021). Strategic Network Orchestration in Emerging Markets: China’s Catch-up in the High-Speed Train Industry. British Journal of Management, 32(1), 97–123. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12457.
[53] Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2018). Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities – A framework for innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 74(October), 65–78. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.020.
[54] Schepis, D., Purchase, S., & Butler, B. (2021). Facilitating open innovation processes through network orchestration mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 93(January), 270–280. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.015.
[55] Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Möller, K., & Nätti, S. (2022). Orchestrating innovation networks: Alignment and orchestration profile approach. Journal of Business Research, 140, 170–188. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.084.
[56] Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F. M., Klerkx, L., & Omta, S. W. F. (Onno). (2010). Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(1), 47–76. doi:10.1080/08985620903220512.
[57] Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.21318923.
[58] Faccin, K., Wegner, D., & Balestrin, A. (2020). How to orchestrate R&D networks? The role of orchestration sub-processes and collaborative practices over time. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(1), 161–177. doi:10.1111/caim.12355.
[59] Prabowo, G. M., Priyono, A., Suhartini, & Hidayat, A. (2025). How to orchestrate participants of ecosystem to foster innovation: an exploratory analysis on the network level. Kybernetes, 54(1), 203–222. doi:10.1108/K-03-2023-0501.
[60] Stahl, M., Zarco-Jasso, H., & Miralles-Torner, F. (2023). The role of innovation intermediaries in orchestrating innovation networks. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1–11. doi:10.1109/ice/itmc58018.2023.10332355.
[61] Moradlou, H., Roscoe, S., Reefke, H., & Handfield, R. (2024). Using not-for-profit innovation networks to transition new technologies across the valley of death. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 44(3), 591–616. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-11-2022-0697.
[62] Woo, S. H., Kang, D. J., & Martin, S. (2013). Seaport Research: An Analysis of Research Collaboration using Social Network Analysis. Transport Reviews, 33(4), 460–475. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.786766.
[63] Cricchio, J., Barabuffi, S., Crupi, A., & Di Minin, A. (2025). China’s new knowledge brokers. A patent citations network analysis of the artificial intelligence open innovation ecosystem. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 76(March), 101870. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2025.101870.
[64] Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010.
[65] Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. doi:10.1086/421787.
[66] Hung, C. L., Kuo, S. J., & Dong, T. P. (2013). The relationship between team communication, structure, and academic R&D performance: Empirical evidence of the national telecommunication program in Taiwan. R and D Management, 43(2), 121–135. doi:10.1111/radm.12004.
[67] Guan, J., & Zhao, Q. (2013). The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in Nano biopharmaceuticals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1271–1286. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.013.
[68] De Iudicibus, A., Prota, L., & Savoia, F. (2025). Assessing the role of technological districts in regional innovation policies: a network analysis of collaborative R&D projects. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50(1), 62–95. doi:10.1007/s10961-024-10088-4.
[69] Töpfer, S., Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2019). Structural dynamics of innovation networks in German Leading-Edge Clusters. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(6), 1816–1839. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9642-4.
[70] Hollweck, T. (2015). Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(1), 108–110. doi:10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108.
[71] Kurt, Y., & Kurt, M. (2020). Social network analysis in international business research: An assessment of the current state of play and future research directions. International Business Review, 29(2), 101633. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101633.
[72] Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147–158. doi:10.17348/era.5.0.147-158.
[73] Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 51, 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.12.004.
[74] Richardson, A. (2004). Robert K. Merton and philosophy of science. Social Studies of Science, 34(6), 855–858. doi:10.1177/0306312704042086.
[75] Ruiz-Eugenio, L., Tellado, I., Valls-Carol, R., & Gairal-Casadó, R. (2023). Dialogic popular education in Spain and its impact on society, educational and social theory, and European research. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 14(1), 47–61. doi:10.3384/rela.2000-7426.4325.
[76] Marín-González, E., Malmusi, D., Camprubí, L., & Borrell, C. (2017). The Role of Dissemination as a Fundamental Part of a Research Project: Lessons Learned from SOPHIE. International Journal of Health Services, 47(2), 258–276. doi:10.1177/0020731416676227.
[77] Fujitani, M., McFall, A., Randler, C., & Arlinghaus, R. (2017). Participatory adaptive management leads to environmental learning outcomes extending beyond the sphere of science. Science Advances, 3(6), e1602516. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602516.
[78] Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.002.
[79] Branco Sousa, S. (2023). Discourses on Research and Researchers: The Case of Portuguese Associated Laboratories. Przegląd Badań Edukacyjnych, 2(40), 77–87. doi:10.12775/pbe.2022.019.
[80] Luke, D. A., & Harris, J. K. (2007). Network analysis in public health: History, methods, and applications. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 69–93. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144132.
[81] Boulos, A. (2016). The labour market relevance of PhDs: an issue for academic research and policy-makers. Studies in Higher Education, 41(5), 901–913. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1147719.
[82] Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006.
[83] Rantala, T., Ukko, J., & Saunila, M. (2021). The Role of Performance Measurement in University-Industry Collaboration Projects as a Part of Managing Triple Helix Operations. Triple Helix, 8(3), 405–444. doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10011.
[84] Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Mapping the network structure of science parks. Aslib Proceedings, 64(4), 332–357. doi:10.1108/00012531211244716.
[85] Borgatti, S. P., & Li, X. (2009). On social network analysis in a supply chain context. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5–22. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03166.x.
[86] Godley, J., Sharkey, K. a, & Weiss, S. (2013). Networks of Neuroscientists : Professional Interactions within an Interdisciplinary Brain Research Institute. Journal of Research Administration, 44(2), 94–123.
[87] Romero, F. C. (2018). Social Network Analysis and the Study of University Industry Relations. Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Media and Communications, IGI Global, Hershey, United States. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7601-3.ch044.
[88] Steelman, T., Bogdan, A., Mantyka-Pringle, C., Bradford, L., Reed, M. G., Baines, S., Fresque-Baxter, J., Jardine, T., Shantz, S., Abu, R., Staples, K., Andrews, E., Bharadwaj, L., Strickert, G., Jones, P., Lindenschmidt, K., & Poelzer, G. (2021). Evaluating transdisciplinary research practices: insights from social network analysis. Sustainability Science, 16(2), 631–645. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00901-y.
[89] Bento, A. I., Cruz, C., Fernandes, G., & Ferreira, L. M. D. F. (2024). Social Network Analysis: Applications and New Metrics for Supply Chain Management—A Literature Review. Logistics, 8(1), 15. doi:10.3390/logistics8010015.
[90] Chiu, Y. T. H. (2009). How network competence and network location influence innovation performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(1), 46–55. doi:10.1108/08858620910923694.
[91] Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004. doi:10.2307/3069443.
[92] Strotebeck, F. (2014). Running with the pack? The role of Universities of applied science in a German research network. Review of Regional Research, 34(2), 139–156. doi:10.1007/s10037-014-0090-4.
[93] Giachi, S., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2018). Organisational innovations for science-industry interactions: The emergence of collaborative research centres in Spanish regional innovation systems. Advances in Spatial Science, August, 151–170. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95135-5_8.
[94] Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Vindefjärd, A. N., & Sundberg, C. J. (2010). What do European research collaboration networks in life sciences look like? Research Evaluation, 19(5), 373–384. doi:10.3152/095820210X12809191250924.
[95] Uddin, S. (2017). Social network analysis in project management - A case study of analysing stakeholder networks. Journal of Modern Project Management, 5(1), 106–113. doi:10.19255/JMPM01310.
[96] Kroll, H. (2016). Supporting new strategic models of science-industry R&D collaboration: A review of global experiences. Working Papers Firms and Region, No. R2/2016, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.
[97] Arnott, J. C., Neuenfeldt, R. J., & Lemos, M. C. (2020). Co-producing science for sustainability: Can funding change knowledge use? Global Environmental Change, 60, 101979. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979.
[98] Flexner, A. (2017). The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, United States. doi:10.1515/9781400884629.
[99] Resnik, D. B. (2008). Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight. Episteme, 5(2), 220–238. doi:10.3366/e1742360008000336.
[100] Correa, P., & Zuniga, P. (2013). Public policies to foster knowledge transfer from public research organizations. Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice, 90534, 1-28.
[101] Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J., Kalafatis, S. E., Scavia, D., & Rood, R. B. (2014). Moving climate information off the shelf: Boundary chains and the role of risas as adaptive organizations. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(2), 273–285. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00044.1.
[102] Newton, A., & Elliott, M. (2016). A Typology of Stakeholders and Guidelines for Engagement in Transdisciplinary, Participatory Processes. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00230.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
