BackgroundSocial acceptance presents a major challenge for Germany's transition to green energy. As a power-to-x technology, green hydrogen is set to become a key component of a future sustainable energy system. With a view to averting conflicts like those surrounding wind energy, we have investigated social acceptance of green hydrogen at an early stage in its implementation, before wider rollout. Our study uses a mixed-method approach, wherein semi-structured interviews (n = 24) and two participatory workshops (n = 51) in a selected region in central Germany serve alongside a representative survey (n = 2054) as the basis for both understanding social attitudes and reaching generalisable conclusions.ResultsOverall, it is possible to observe both a marked lack of knowledge and a large degree of openness towards green hydrogen and its local use, along with high expectations regarding environmental and climate protection. We reach three key conclusions. First, acceptance of green hydrogen relies on trust in science, government, the media, and institutions that uphold distributive justice, with consideration for regional values playing a vital role in establishing said trust. Second, methodologically sound participatory processes can promote acceptance, and active support in particular. Third, recurrent positive participatory experiences can effectively foster trust.ConclusionsAccordingly, we argue that trust should be strengthened on a structural level, and that green hydrogen acceptance should be understood as a matter of responsible innovation. As the first empirical investigation into social acceptance of green hydrogen, and by conceptually interlinking acceptance research and responsible innovation, this study constitutes an important contribution to existing research.

Citizen science, transdisciplinary research, dialogic forms of science communication or public engagement: these and other research approaches and fields, often subsumed under participatory research, have in common that they enable people outside of academia to actively engage in the production of scientific knowledge. However, each of these fields sets its own goals, uses different formats and has a different scope and impact. The conference 'Opportunities and Limitations of Participation in Academia' held in September 2022 as part of the German Science Year 'Participate!' aimed to connect the various participation communities in Germany and to explore commonalities and success factors. Through intensive discussions in four working groups, a keynote speech and a panel discussion, the conference initiated an exchange of ideas and experiences amongst researchers in a converging field. This report is a summary of the key questions and outcomes of the conference.

Background: Science strives to provide high-quality evidence for all members of society, but there continues to be a considerable gender and diversity data gap, i.e., a systematic lack of data for traditionally underrepresented groups. Gender and other diversity domains are related to morbidity, mortality, and social and economic participation, yet comprehensive measures as well as evidence regarding how these domains intersect are missing. We propose a brief, efficient Diversity Minimal Item Set (DiMIS) for routine data collection in empirical studies to contribute to closing the diversity and gender data gap. We focus on the example of health but consider the DiMIS applicable across scientific disciplines.Methods: To identify items for the DiMIS across diversity domains, we performed an extensive literature search and conducted semi-structured interviews with scientific experts and community stakeholders in ten diversity domains. Using this information, we created a minimal item set of self-report survey items for each domain.Findings: Items covering ten diversity domains as well as discrimination experiences were compiled from a variety of sources and modified as recommended by experts. The DiMIS focuses on an intersectional approach, i.e., studying gender, age, socioeconomic status, care responsibilities, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, mental and physical health, and their intersections. It allows for data sets with comparable assessments of gender and diversity across multiple projects to be combined, creating samples large enough for meaningful analyses. Interpretation: In proposing the DiMIS, we hope to advance the conversation about closing the gender and diversity data gap in science.

Abstract This article outlines the theoretical foundations of the research contributions of this edited collection about “Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations.” First, the sociological understanding of the basic concepts of diversity and discrimination is described and the current state of research is introduced. Second, national and organizational contextual conditions and risk factors that shape discrimination experiences and the management of diversity in research teams and organizations are presented. Third, the questions and research approaches of the individual contributions to this edited collection are presented. Keywords Gender Comparative research Bullying Harassment Implicit bias Citation Müller, J., Striebing, C. and Schraudner, M. (2022), "Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations: Theoretical Starting Points", Striebing, C., Müller, J. and Schraudner, M. (Ed.) Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-956-020221001 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2023 Jörg Müller, Clemens Striebing, and Martina Schraudner License Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this work (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Purpose of this Edited Collection The era of team science has long since dawned (Wang and Barabási, 2021; Pavlidis et al., 2014). Diverse teams are considered to have the potential to work particularly efficiently. Creative thinking, diversity of perspectives and the ability to solve complex problems might be pronounced in diverse teams, which has not only been shown for multidisciplinary but also gender-diverse teams (Abdalla et al., 1999; Bear and Woolley, 2011; Østergaard et al., 2011). Such skills are key competencies for research organizations that want to be influential and internationally-recognized sites for cutting-edge research. However, in order for the individual members of a team to work well, research organizations need to provide a productive and naturally non-discriminatory working environment. The fact that bringing together and integrating researchers and their diverse backgrounds in effective teams is precarious due to the structural conditions of the research system – that is, it does not happen on its own – will be further discussed here. To harness the positive effects of diversity, it must be managed proactively (Nielsen et al., 2018). In this context, the edited collection has the following purposes: to contribute rare quantitative analyses of the extent of discrimination according to diverse socio-demographic characteristics of individuals in research-performing organizations; to contribute analyses of the contextual organizational factors that affect the perception of discrimination within research-performing organizations, and to seek the connection to practice by highlighting options for action. The publication explores discrimination in research organizations, by which we mean all forms of organizations whose main purpose is to conduct research. The focus is on public research organizations such as universities or non-university research institutions (represented in the edited collection primarily by the German Max Planck Society). Research departments of companies – which in our view operate more according to the rules of the private sector than academia – are not included. In principle, discrimination can be discussed for all areas of society and is regularly relevant simply due to its strong significance for the working climate and the well-being of individuals and teams. The relevance of research-performing organizations as a research topic seems to be additionally given by the political efforts of advanced (trans-)national innovation systems to combat systemic discrimination and the major role that effective diversity management plays for successful cooperative creative processes. At a political level, as editors and researchers active in national and international projects we experience the European Commission as a particularly proactive actor. With its “Horizon Europe” funding programme for research and innovation, the EC also promotes research projects and practical measures to reduce discrimination and create an inclusive research culture in the research systems of its member states. In doing so, it strives to strengthen international mobility and the competitiveness of a common European research area as part of its mandate laid down in Article 179 of the EU Treaty.1 Diversity and Discrimination: A Sociological Definition Conceptual Understanding of Discrimination Research on discrimination in the labor market and work organizations has lost none of its relevance. This continued interest by researchers and practitioners is partly due to the fact that discrimination has become more subtle while still producing adverse effects for disadvantaged social groups. Over the decades, theory as well as empirical research has moved away from understanding discrimination as deliberate and intentional acts of exclusion perpetuated by individuals toward more complex and elusive mechanisms including cognitive “implicit bias” (Quillian, 2006), “microaggressions” (Sue, 2010), unfair and biased organizational processes (Nelson et al., 2008), or the systemic nature of what Barbara Reskin (2012) has called “über discrimination.” Nonetheless, while discriminatory practices have become less overt (Sturm, 2001), their effects continue to be felt in a very direct and real way by individuals as well as organizations. Findings presented by Jones et al. (2016) in their meta-analysis show that subtle forms of discrimination are “at least as substantial, if not more substantial” (italics original) than overt forms regarding diminishing the physical and mental health of individuals, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment, to name just three of its effects. The resulting reduced well-being and self-esteem of staff has organizational-level consequences as employees’ work attitudes decline, turnover intentions increase or job performance dwindles, affecting the overall effectiveness of firms (for a review, see Colella et al., 2012). Thus, while it has become more difficult to detect discrimination, its negative consequences are as direct and powerful as ever, calling for equally strategic and systemic counter-measures. Discrimination has a long and substantive research pedigree in the social and behavioral sciences, with contributions spanning several disciplines including economics, sociology, psychology, management and law. Although the explanatory models for discrimination differ across these fields of knowledge, there is a certain agreement on its basic definition: discrimination involves the differential treatment of individuals based on functionally irrelevant status cues such as race or gender (Merton, 1972; Altonji and Blank, 1999). Unpacking this definition first implies recognizing that discrimination is based on group membership and as such it never targets a person due to individual reasons. Discrimination happens because individuals are perceived as belonging to a social group delineated by gender, race or national origin, age, health conditions or disability, religion, and/or sexual orientation (Colella et al., 2012; Baumann et al., 2018). These categories often do not function as unified, mutually-exclusive entities, but rather they “intersect” and can thereby aggravate experiences of oppression and power (Collins, 2015). Second, discrimination implies an “unjustified” differential treatment that occurs due to social group membership rather than actual differences in terms of task-relevant qualifications, contributions, or performance. Thus, job opportunities, promotions or rewards (e.g., wages) differ between women and men, even when comparing equally qualified and experienced persons. Consequently, discrimination is considered not only unfair but also illegal in many contexts. Third, discrimination refers to behavior rather than solely beliefs and attitudes. Although the psychological literature predominately explains discrimination with references to prejudice and stereotypes, this is insufficient to constitute an act of discrimination (Fiske et al., 2009). For discrimination to occur, actions need to be carried out that exclude, disadvantage, harm, harass or deprive the members of a less favored group compared to the members of a more favor group. Although most research conceives discrimination as negative behavior against disadvantaged groups, it can also involve positive behavior, that is, giving advantages to already-privileged groups. In fact, as Nancy DiTomaso (2020, 2013) argues, for the perpetuation of social inequality, the positive actions taken on behalf of those who are already advantaged may be as consequential or more so than the negative actions that deny opportunity to those who are disadvantaged. Conceptual Understanding of Diversity Similar to research on discrimination, research on workplace diversity continues to be a burgeoning academic field. As Faria (2015) suggests, diversity research came into being in the US during the 1980s as a specific reaction against the previous social justice-based Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Affirmative Action (AA) policies dealing with discrimination. Driven by an increasingly heterogeneous workforce and economic globalization, these justice-based policies were considered to be inefficient and costly, and replaced in favor of an emerging business case for diversity. Whereas discrimination involves a moral component in terms of the “unjustified” differential treatment (Altman, 2011), diversity relinquishes these moral and legal burdens, concentrating instead on a pragmatic strategy to increase the corporate bottom line (Litvin, 2006). Diversity research therefore attenuates regulatory approaches for ameliorating the negative effects of discrimination and instead emphasizes proactive measures to capitalize on heterogeneous resources available in different work settings. For diversity research, the focus on measurable profits implied the establishment of a matrix of quantification where certain clear-cut, easily observable demographic differences could be set in relation to equally quantifiable, dependent outcomes. Backed up by the predominant positivist research tradition in the US, demographic differences according to gender, age, race as well as functional differences such as educational background were thus operationalized and enshrined as measurable, stable markers of identity to be harnessed by Human Resource Departments and Management for improved profitability. As a result, a major difference between discrimination and diversity approaches in workplace settings concerns the role reserved for markers of social identity such as age, gender, or race. While diversity scholars conceived these differences in terms of a-historical, personal attributes, discrimination scholars are mostly attentive to the ways in which these individual attributes delineate group-based membership, which in turn is tied to historically-grown positions of privilege and power (Prasad, Pringle, and Konrad, 2006). Today, diversity research has increasingly overcome its initial and overly simplistic conceptions of fixed identity attributes, partly driven by the largely inconsistent findings of its initial research program, which failed to establish any clear-cut linear relationship between diversity attributes and economic benefits (Haas, 2010). While subsequent work has become more aware of the contextual nuances that moderate and mediate the effects of diversity (van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Joshi and Roh, 2007, 2009), other approaches appear to have come full circle in terms of recognizing the importance of power and status processes for working groups (van Dijk and Van Engen 2013; Ravlin and Thomas 2005; DiTomaso et al., 2007). As van Dijk et al. (2017) rightly emphasize, diversity research needs to take into account that members of different social groups are likely to be perceived and approached differently because of their membership in a given social category […] and, in part as a consequence, may behave differently (p. 518). Diversity and Discrimination — Common Ground Thus, as these recent developments suggest, discrimination and diversity research are becoming more closely aligned. This is especially apparent from the combination of the underlying psychological models in work groups and their organizational context factors. As we argue, social categorization models need to be combined with status-/power-based approaches (e.g., AA and equal opportunities) to work group diversity, prevent discriminating behaviors and enable organizations to take full advantage of their diverse human resources. Studies of discrimination and diversity appear in this sense as two sides of the same coin, suggesting that measures leading to a reduction of discrimination not only reduce adverse effects at the individual level but also hold the potential to create more productive and effective work environments. Approaches to Studying Discrimination and Diversity Levels of Analysis While research on diversity primarily operates at the level of teams and small- to medium-sized work groups (Roberson, 2019; van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007), research on discrimination can target the micro-, meso- and macro-level of society or a combination of these levels of analysis. At the macro-level, the magnitude and persistence of discrimination has been well documented in relation to race and gender in employment, housing, credit markets, schooling and consumer markets (Pager and Shepherd, 2008). For example, concerning housing and credit markets, Pager and Shepherd (2008) summarize that “blacks and Hispanics face higher rejection rates and less favorable terms in securing mortgages than do whites” (p. 189). Although differential treatment varies across countries and even cities, discrimination remains pervasive and an important barrier to residential opportunities. Gender-based discrimination in the labor market – to use a second macro-level example – is just as widespread and structural as race-based inequalities. The wage gap between women and men remains at an estimated 16 percent globally (International Labour Office, 2018). In the EU-28, women in Research & Development earn on average 17 percent less than their male colleagues (European Commission, 2019). Together with the horizontal segregation of women and men in certain labor market segments and vertical segregation restricting women from access to decision-making positions, these macro-level forms of discrimination constitute defining structural fault lines of contemporary labor markets. While macro-level accounts usually produce evidence regarding the extent of structural disadvantages between social groups, meso- and micro-level accounts have advanced explanatory models of why discrimination occurs at all. The crucial influence of the organizational climate on discrimination constitutes a well-known example at the meso level. Thus, it has been shown that the organizational climate is the single-most important driving factor for sexual harassment to occur (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; Willness, Steel, and Lee, 2007). On the other hand, micro-level accounts build upon psychology and social psychology to expose the individual-level dimensions of discrimination. Different psychological models exist concerning how prejudice and stereotypes are linked to discriminating actions, such as when implicit attitudes shape the behavior toward others defined by their social group identity (Greenwald and Krieger, 2006). The contributions of this edited collection in their entirety cover the macro-, meso- and micro-level. Discrimination and Diversity through a National and Organizational Lens While considerable advances have been achieved to untangle the hidden dynamics of discrimination in organizations, the collection of research articles presented here makes two specific contributions to the existing literature. First, they contribute research on aggregated and individual identity-related experiences of workplace misconduct at the research workplace. The contributions focus on different socio-demographic groups of people and consider research organizations that operate in different national contexts. The contributions reflect the influence of the systemic framework of academia. Second, the relationship between diversity and discrimination in the context of the academic workplace is especially interesting in relation to one of the most decisive transformations of the academic environment over recent decades, namely the simultaneous intensification of work and diminishing resources/funding. The introduction of a new managerialism and regimes of accountability has obliged academics to do more with fewer resources and less time. As incipient research shows, the effects in terms of discrimination are particularly felt by minorities and those collectives that are already in more precarious and disadvantaged situations. Although research on the “neoliberal university” is abundant, there is a clear lack of more focused approaches to understand its implications for discrimination as well as diversity in work teams. The contributions gathered in this edited collection are all situated in different national and organizational contexts, from the USA, France, Germany and Nigeria to Vietnam, and the conditions of academic workplaces in non-university and university contexts as well as public or private research organizations at different hierarchical levels and in different disciplines are examined. These national and organizational contextual conditions must be taken into account when considering the transferability of the results to other contexts, as explained below. The Relevance of National Context Discrimination is a persistent phenomenon throughout time, but levels of discrimination considerably differ across countries. As Quillian et al. (2019) show in their meta-analysis of job application field experiments, the strength of racial discrimination can considerably vary across the nine countries included in their study. White job applicants receive up to 65–100 percent more callbacks in France and Sweden than non-white minorities. Discrimination of job applications is weaker in Germany, the United States and Norway, where they receive on average 20–40 percent fewer callbacks. Similar findings are available from the large GEMM study carried out in several EU countries, particularly focusing on hiring discrimination based on ethnic background. Discrimination ratios were the highest in Britain – where ethnic minorities need to send out 54 percent more applications to achieve the same callback rate as the majority group – and the lowest in Germany, where minority applicants need to send out 15 percent more applications (Lancee, 2021; Di Stasio and Lancee, 2020). Examining religion, the study also finds that in the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, Muslims are “more than 10 percentage points less likely than majority members to receive a callback” (Di Stasio et al., 2021, p. 1316). Comparative studies examining the effects of perceived discrimination equally attest to country-level differences concerning both gender and race. As Triana et al. (2019) show, differences in outcomes in terms of the psychological and physical health of gender discrimination at work can be linked back to differences in national labor policies and gender-egalitarian cultural practices between countries. To the degree that institutional frameworks such as labor market policies, legal regulations or cultural norms differ between countries, levels of discrimination will vary accordingly. Along the same lines, Quillian et al. (2019) see the comparatively high levels of hiring discrimination in France and Sweden as resulting from unconstrained employers’ discretion that is neither monitored nor held in check by discrimination lawsuits such as in the US. The role of national context factors for diversity are equally not fully understood. Although Joshi and Roh (2007) highlight national culture as one “distal omnibus” element affecting diversity outcomes, results are not particularly abundant. Early insights suggest that important dimensions of teamwork such as hierarchical versus more horizontal peer-based control structures vary across cultures and can invert the outcomes of diversity. Thus, van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, and Huang (2005) show that in cultures where power is more centralized, tenure and functional diversity are negatively associated with innovative climates, whereas in low power distance cultures diversity is positively associated with innovative climates. As the GLOBE study across 62 societies has amply documented, cultural differences not only exist in terms of “power distance” but also regarding other important features affecting diversity climate in work groups such as risk avoidance, performance orientation, gender egalitarianism, or levels of collectivist versus more individualized values (House et al., 2004). For certain areas of diversity research such as the under-representation of women on corporate boards, cultural differences in terms of gender egalitarianism and/or traditional gender roles have been shown to play a decisive role (Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle, 2020). However, since the primary interest of diversity research lies at the work group level, explorations of macro-scale patterns that are so common for discrimination research are rare. Instead, national differences are frequently operationalized in terms of the diversity of cultural values that individual team members bring to the work group (Bodla et al., 2018). An important additional perspective for understanding the national context of discrimination concerns a situational perspective. Apart from institutional differences in terms of labor market legislation between countries, discrimination has also been linked to historical legacies of oppression such as slavery. Apart from historical legacies, situational accounts frequently also explain discrimination with reference to current economic and demographic conditions or political events (Quillian and Midtbøen, 2021). Right-wing politics stigmatizing certain ethnic or religious groups – for example in relation to terrorist attacks – can fuel discrimination. In situations of crisis such as the recent Covid-19 outbreak, discrimination can be aggravated. As reported by Pew Research Center (2020), 40 percent of black and Asian Americans indicate an increase in discriminating behavior toward them by others since the start of the pandemic. The Covid-19 pandemic has also clearly shown that under conditions of stress or crisis, minorities and marginalized groups will be even further disadvantaged compared to majority social groups (Kantamneni, 2020). However, while the effects of a public health crisis on discrimination have been extensively explored, this is not necessarily true for the effects of economic crises or recessions. Among the few studies directly examining the link between worsening economic conditions and discrimination, Kingston, McGinnity, and O’Connell (2015) show that non-Irish nationals experienced higher rates of work-based discrimination during the recession in 2010 compared to time of economic growth in 2004. Implicitly, there seems to be an understanding that “under conditions of threat (e.g., recessions, downsizing)” or insecurity, organizations and individuals fall back into “a limited set of well-learned and habituated behavioral scripts” (Gelfand et al., 2005, p. 93) to the disadvantage of already-marginalized and excluded social groups. Overall, it remains unclear how these wider economic situational factors play out in terms of discrimination experiences and possibilities of fostering diverse teams. This holds especially in relation to the transformation of academic life in general. Driven by wider transformations and restructuring of the post-war European welfare states, academic work has experienced dramatic shifts over recent decades. Scientific autonomy has increasingly been replaced with an orientation toward performance measures, a focus on excellence and competition, entrepreneurship, or the emphasis on cost efficiency (Herschberg and Benschop, 2019). How these recent developments play out in terms of discrimination experiences within academic organizations remains to be more fully understood. The work conducted here at the meso and micro level provides promising avenues for discrimination research. As we will argue in the next section, organizational culture and climate are not only influenced by wider national settings but they also modulate and refract some of these broader national trends with important implications for reducing discrimination and fostering team effectiveness. As the organizational level is the primary work environment in which people interact, it is one of the most important arenas to control and diminish discrimination. The Relevance of the Organization Organizational factors play an important role for discrimination rates and experiences in work settings. Organizational policies have also been identified as a crucial element for taking advantage of diversity. Formal and informal structures, organizational culture and climate, leadership or human resources, or workplace composition may all contribute to or attenuate discrimination (Gelfand et al., 2005). For example, transparent and formal evaluation criteria at the organizational level – for promotion or recruitment – can reduce discrimination as decision-making is accountable to objective criteria. Similar, holding managers socially accountable for performance ratings is one of three promising and effective strategies in terms of increasing workforce diversity and diminishing discrimination in companies (Dobbin and Kalev, 2016). In addition to encouraging social accountability, two further factors mentioned by Dobbin and Kalev (2016) to reduce discrimination effectively concern the engagement of managers in solving problems and the increase of contact among people from different groups. Both factors can be decisively steered through organizational policies. Organizational climate – to mention another important organization-level factor – is a key driver of harassment (Pryor, Giedd, and Williams, 1995). Incidents of sexual and other harassment are more likely to occur in working environments where harassment is “tolerated” by a leadership that fails to act on complaints, does not sanction perpetrators or protect complainants from retaliation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). This is especially true in settings where men are overrepresented among staff and at the leadership level. For example, a recent study on sexual harassment of undergraduate female physicists in the US – with women being under-represented in physics – revealed that three-quarters of respondents had experienced at least one type of sexual harassment (Aycock et al., 2019). Organizational-level factors such as the overall gender ratios or the wider work climate are therefore considered key elements that can inhibit or encourage discrimination. Examining organizational context factors of discrimination more broadly, most evidence from the US is largely based upon plaintiff accounts of discrimination lawsuits. Thus, Hirsh and colleagues (Hirsh, 2014; Hirsh and Kornrich, 2008) show – for example – how several factors such as the previous vulnerable economic or social status, the workplace culture and the workplace composition affect the perception of discrimination by employees. Similar, Bobbitt-Zeher (2011) exposes how organizational practices and policies combine with workplace composition and gender stereotyping to produce workplace gender discrimination in quite predictable ways. As mentioned, gendered norms of behavior, dress code, or sexualized talk in often male-dominated management and leadership positions create an organizational culture in which discrimination can flourish. Among the few studies to explore the organizational context via an extensive survey is Stainback, Ratliff, and Roscigno (2011) whose study is based upon a sample of 2,555 respondents to the US National Study of the Changing Workforce in 2002. Corroborating the insights of Hirsh (2014), and Bobbitt-Zeher (2011), the results show that the experience of discrimination is reduced for both genders when they are part of the numerical majority in their organization and where a supportive workplace culture is in place. In their survey among 176 employees in the United States, Kartolo and Kwantes (2019) show that behavioral norms related to organizational culture modulates perceived discrimination. While the majority of research on discrimination operates with a concept of behavior that disadvantages or harms people, diversity research foregrounds measures that foster a climate for inclusion to take full advantage of diverse assets within work groups. Indeed, promoting an organizational climate for inclusion is not only beneficial at the individual level (e.g., higher job satisfaction, better physical and psychological health) but also improves group-level outcomes such as overall team or organizational performance. As Brooke and Tyler (2011) succinctly state, […] by cr

Letter to the Editor

Purpose Academic entrepreneurship is extremely relevant in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT). The purpose of this study is to provide insights into phase-specific constraints and needs impacting scientists’ engagement in entrepreneurial activities at public research institutions. Design/methodology/approach In an exploratory case study, 40 qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with German academic entrepreneurs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Findings Based on the data analysis, an ideal-typical founding process with phase-specific barriers and needs was identified. Many constraints and associated needs occur in more than one phase, including the lack of knowledge, the demand for exchange formats, the lack of time and financial resources, institutionalized return options, the lack of human resources and the lack of incentives. Research limitations/implications Given its exploratory approach, this study has limitations regarding its generalization; however, the presented findings may induce further research and in-depth analysis on this matter. Practical implications Several recommendations for action are provided for each phase of the founding process to strengthen the (entrepreneurial) transfer in research organizations. Generally, a pioneering indicator of excellence in the science system should be developed to promote transfer next to publications. Originality/value The study contributes to existing literature on determinants of academic entrepreneurship by indicating the phase-specific constraints and needs throughout the founding process and discussing those needs in the theoretical context of current societal and technological mega-trends.

Traditional processes of research, development and innovation open up towards new stakeholders, as concepts like Quadruple Helix [1] highlight. This is due to an increase in interdependencies between social and technological innovation. Thus, innovation processes rely on the dynamic and flexible interaction of multi-actors and diverse elements, rather than on a number of synchronised, stable process steps. While research and technology organizations (RTOs) are central players for traditional innovation processes, they need to reorient themselves strategically in these changing innovation systems.

The Quadruple Helix Model of innovation recognizes four major actors in the innovation system: science, policy, industry, and society. In keeping with this model, more and more governments are prioritizing greater public involvement in innovation processes. The goal of this study was to identify desirable and productive forms of interaction between the scientific community and the public. Our analysis focuses on the point of view of societal actors, which has so far been largely neglected in scientific literature and political discourse. To this end, we interviewed 50 laypersons with participatory research and innovation experience in Germany to document their opinions of the value of such interaction, the goals it should pursue, and the forms it should take. Rather than preferring the democratization of science in general, interviewees expressed the desire for more extensive opportunities to introduce scientific and technological considerations as part of bidirectional exchanges between academia and society. This paper proposes a layperson typology intended to help design participatory processes that facilitate such exchanges and includes the differences in opinions between men and women.

Academic entrepreneurship is increasingly seen as significantly advancing national efforts to innovate and compete globally. Despite long-term attempts to promote academic spin-off formation however, its numbers across Europe remain relatively low. At the same time, the scarce available data on women in entrepreneurship suggests that while their numbers may be lower, they also appear to choose different business models and focus on different markets than men. The goal of this study therefore was to examine potential differences in motivations and strategies between female and male academic entrepreneurs and, based on this, to project how greater participation by women may benefit the German transfer landscape. We interviewed 40 academic entrepreneurs for this exploratory case study. Their motivations (including gender differences) were identified using open-ended, qualitative content analysis. Our findings suggest that female academic entrepreneurs are often driven by the ideals of creating something for the common good and making a social difference. Male academic entrepreneurs on the other hand appear to pursue more personal goals.

This paper presents an empirically grounded case-based analysis of quadruple helix innovation networks. On the basis of qualitative interviews with representatives of 16 heterogeneous networks, we investigate the functional network roles of 172 actors from the fields of academic research, business, government and society. In this article we focus on universities and research and technology organisations, which face the challenge of having to redefine their functional roles and unique value in the face of increased diversification of knowledge sources within current quadruple helix innovation systems. We delineate both existing and potential future roles for academic actors using a typology of functional roles, and present the challenges research establishments must meet in order to fulfil these roles successfully. Finally, we outline the implications of this analysis for the strategic positioning of research institutions, so as to ensure the future inclusion of their innovative capacity in collaborative innovation networks.

Our research project Shaping Future presents a methodology for setting need-oriented research agendas in the field of human-machine interaction.