Research and development (R&D) initiatives are fundamental for society to evolve in its social, economic, technological and environmental dimensions. This study aimed to provide a view of what motivates researchers to participate in such projects as well as the benefits and barriers they encounter when cooperating in R&D projects.
A qualitative methodology was adopted, within which a case study was conducted: R&D project “GreenHealth - Digital Strategies”. This initiative was based on leveraging biological assets to improve well-being and promote health. Data were obtained from 10 interviews with researchers and documentary analysis such as the project’s official website and social media accounts.
The content analysis led to the conclusion that the researchers’ motivations for participating in R&D projects were the opportunity to contribute to scientific and social evolution, the creation of knowledge and personal factors inherent to the participating researchers. The benefits they derived were related to creating and spreading knowledge, as well as financial incentives. Barriers to participation were related to management, communication, organisational culture, the COVID-19 pandemic.
From this study the research team members can understand the importance of cooperation between institutions, which illustrates the importance of creating and transferring knowledge. This study shows also that, in R&D projects, educational and health institutions access new knowledge, attract highly qualified personnel/researchers, establish networks and share financial risks.
The study’s innovation derives from its demonstration that an R&D project of this nature is important for several organisations to develop the conception and implementation of a long-term strategy centred on human beings and focused on the eco-sustainability of the affected regions.
1. Introduction
Since 1984, several countries of the European Union (EU) have supported research and development (R&D) activities covering almost all of the scientific domains through a series of ongoing projects and programmes. In addition, in recent years, the governments of several developed countries have provided funds for R&D activities (Chang, 2023). Relatedly, one of the most important developments has been the significant growth in the number of projects that have been undertaken across different sectors and industries (Coughlan et al., 2021).
At the same time, mainly because of the uncertainty and risks faced in the early stages of R&D projects, attracting up-front investment from the private sector can be difficult. Regardless of who provides funding, in the context of contemporary research, the production of knowledge involves establishing collaborative networks between researchers and professionals (van Rijnsoever and Hessels, 2021).
According to D’Este et al. (2018), research projects are increasingly centred on collaboration between heterogenous actors, both to produce knowledge and to formulate interdisciplinary responses to society’s challenges and market needs. As noted by Rajalo and Vadi (2017), R&D and cooperation-based research projects are encouraged through various national or international public funding programmes. Public subsidies for R&D have also increased steadily in recent decades (Szücs, 2018).
R&D initiatives are fundamental for society’s development in all of its dimensions, including social, economic, technological and environmental. Such activities are increasingly recognised particularly by higher education institutions (HEIs), national governments and supranational authorities, as shown by the increasing volume of R&D projects being carried out on a regular basis (Santos, 2021). In fact, academic research in several countries has confirmed this trend, which appears prepared to continue with increasing numbers of new initiatives pursued through government-funded projects and programmes (Nyimaga and Charles, 2024).
At the same time, governments are increasingly recognising the importance of projects and seek to enhance the impact of R&D by supporting sector-wide approaches, especially within the educational sector. This approach involves budgetary funding, improved coordination among the funders and promoting increased trust between researchers. Whereas private organisations tend to effectively engage community members in development projects, thereby meeting the specific needs and wants of the communities, government typically does not. This has led to the abandonment of several development initiatives by governments (Arkorful et al., 2023).
In this context, cooperation in terms of R&D can be understood as any action that allows participants or partners to help each other perform their functions and activities (Tuomela, 1993). This type of mutual activity can occur between two or more organisations. For Nechansky (2018), cooperation corresponds to mutual activity towards mutually accepted objectives, and that activity can be considered a highly productive form of interaction. As noted by Santos (2021), HEIs in particular are increasingly becoming involved with public research and technology organisations in multidisciplinary and often international R&D projects. However, private and public organisations, by definition, have different and sometimes contradictory cultures, incentives and objectives for R&D projects. This often results in misaligned initiatives that perform poorly and fall short of expectations.
Despite the advantages of cooperative research, according to Beck et al. (2016), in R&D projects financed, this type of project has been given less attention in the empirical literature. Franco and Pinho (2019) indicated the need for more studies on cooperation in R&D projects, and Santos (2021) mentioned that using public resources for organisation-based R&D has been addressed. Yet, there is little existing research on R&D projects financed through public resources and carried out by public bodies. In fact, the common trend in previous studies has been a careful omission of the motivations, benefits and barriers to cooperation in government-financed R&D projects of some organisations. In addition, the literature focuses mainly on industry rather than the public sector and, as mentioned by Santos (2021), there is little research on publicly-funded R&D projects carried out by different institutions.
Therefore, the current study departed from this trend to explore the motivations, benefits and barriers that researchers experience in relation to cooperating in government-funded R&D projects of private organisations to answer the research question: “What factors stimulate researchers” cooperation in government funding R&D projects? To this end, the study was guided by the premises of network perspective as the theoretical support and focused on the case of a specific R&D project – “GreenHealth: Digital Strategies”– which was based on the leveraging of green assets to improve well-being and promote sustainable health. Network theory offers techniques for identifying and exploiting characteristics of group interaction.
The literature demonstrates the absence of a standardised framework for project execution within these sectors. Therefore, the issue demands a comprehensive examination of government-funded initiatives within HEIs and health organisations with the aim of identifying shortcomings and providing suggestions for an enhanced and more effective implementation framework. Addressing the lack of a standardised framework is imperative to ensuring the successful realisation of project objectives and the optimal utilisation of government investments.
The study is structured as follows. This introduction is followed by the literature review, which addresses the following topics: cooperation in R&D projects and the motivations, benefits and barriers experienced by researchers. Section 2 presents the methodological procedures adopted for the study. The results section presents a detailed analysis of the data and a discussion of its implications. The last section presents the conclusions, contributions, limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1 Cooperative research and development projects for innovation
Innovation and R&D are crucial to national economic growth (Havas et al., 2010), and government funding solves the problem of insufficient private R&D investment (Chang, 2023). In this context, the governments of many countries have introduced a variety of policy instruments to incentivise organisations to perform innovation and research. Among these policy instruments, direct financial support has gained widespread attention in the recent literature, with a specific focus on the institutional-level effect of direct financial support (Zhou et al., 2020).
However, both national and local governments have different policy objectives in terms of the design and delivery of innovation policy to encourage organisations to participate in R&D projects. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the roles of central and local governments when evaluating the relationships between governments’ direct funding of projects and organisations’ innovation performance (Zhou et al., 2020). Moreover, prior research has not presented the direct effects of financial support for R&D projects on different types of organisations.
In response to this research gap, this study focused on educational and health contexts. That is, only a few studies have addressed the effects of government funding on the progress of industry/academia collaboration (Nugent et al., 2022). An R&D collaboration is perceived here as a temporary organisation with a collaborative work environment with heterogeneous partners, collective responsibilities and, in many cases, with public funding support (Brocke and Lippe, 2015).
Through the establishment of an R&D consortium between government and industries (Caloffi et al., 2020), small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have access to funding and R&D labour force members. Indeed, government subsidies can stimulate corporate R&D expenditures and innovation initiatives (Caloffi et al., 2018). In addition, governments may directly fund specific technology development in the form of a project (Hsu and Hsueh, 2009).
As noted by Blind et al. (2018), university researchers have three main tasks:
Education;
Research; and
Knowledge transfer.
Investigation is the main activity of researchers who work in research centres, but as HEIs and other type of organisations are financed directly by the government, knowledge transfer is a stated purpose to advance state-of-the-art of technology. Research continues to increase as HEIs have become multifunctional organisations that combine the functions of teaching, research and social services. According to the same authors, HEIs are now focused on various activities of commercialising research, such as patenting and creating spin-offs.
In this environment, research centres and HEIs search increasingly for effective ways to support and reinforce their capacity for scientific research. Many of their types of financing are based on the possibility of greater cooperation between researchers and between institutions, thereby leading to greater scientific productivity (Contandriopoulos et al., 2018). Various studies have shown convincingly that interorganisational cooperation in R&D projects has a positive influence on innovation activities (e.g. Beck et al., 2016; Belderbos et al., 2004; Szücs, 2018).
In the context of private business, Belderbos et al. (2004) studied the effects of different types of R&D cooperation on firm performance by considering cooperation with competitors, suppliers, clients and research institutes and universities. They analysed the effects of these R&D partnerships using two alternative measures of performance with a large number of Dutch firms. The study concluded that cooperation with universities and research centres had a positive effect on sales growth because that cooperation was fundamental to creating and bringing innovation practices.
Relatedly, Szücs (2018) examined the impact of the Seventh Framework Programme on government-funded innovation activities. The author found that the success of a project, measured by the results of the innovation it introduced, depended largely on the number of participants and the financing received. In particular, cooperation on R&D initiatives between private firms and universities appeared to be the main source of the positive effect on patents. As such, research projects shared by academia and private business appear able to achieve significant recognition.
Branstetter and Sakakibara (2002) studied research projects based on cooperation strategies organised and supported through public funding in Japan. The authors concluded that the results of the cooperation were positively associated with the level of potential R&D within the cooperative relation and negatively associated with the degree of competition among partners. Furthermore, the study concluded that consortia are most effective when they concentrate on basic research rather than applied R&D. Other authors (e.g. Aguiar and Gagnepain, 2017) analysed the effects of R&D cooperation on firms’ economic performance within the EUs FP5 and concluded that the impact on the firms’ competitiveness was potentially high.
In the Swiss context, Beck et al. (2016) studied the impact and effectiveness of a public policy to support R&D project. In terms of innovation, they discovered that the impact of public support was significant only for radical innovation, while no impact of policy-led R&D was found for incremental innovation.
In sum, government-funded R&D projects have become a specific practice in various countries to strengthen R&D activities. The potential for government-funded R&D is receiving growing attention, and an increasing number of government-funded projects are being conducted in related R&D activities, but few studies on this question exist relative to the education and health contexts.
2.2 Researchers’ motivations for participating in cooperative research and development projects
Cooperation between organisations allows them to overcome limited resources and reduce costs and risks while facilitating different types of innovation and R&D activities (Pereira et al., 2020). Farias and Hoffmann (2018) highlighted as motives for cooperation, the combination of information and skills, the division of tasks in conducting research, the reduction of production, transaction, information and costs and an increase in learning and innovation, among others. Indeed, cooperation between organisations is evident in several contexts, including the education sector, as this strategy offers synergistic results based on the complementarity between the cooperating organisations and the interconnection of resources and capacities fostered by the interest of shared research (Zinilli et al., 2023).
In this regard, the literature shows that there has been a growing recognition of the prevalence and importance of cooperation among HEIs (Shahmoradi et al., 2020). These relationships, which can be either intra or interorganisational, arise to promote positive interactions that result in the achievement of mutual benefits and agreed-upon common goals. This reality can be seen not only in the success of several interorganisational projects aimed at achieving complex objectives that are difficult to achieve individually but also in the increased sharing of resources, responsibilities and objectives among different organisations. Ultimately, communication, according to Carmona (2015), facilitates the interaction of knowledge and synergies between different actors and organisations. Cooperative R&D is, therefore, a way for organisations to obtain expertise that cannot be generated in-house, and it offers the possibility of efficient knowledge transfer, resource exchange and organisational learning (Fernandes et al., 2020).
Academic cooperation involves partnerships between different universities or research institutes which come together to carry out joint projects. The motivation to join this type of partnership is that it enables the sharing of knowledge and resources aimed at the efficient execution of research projects (Schall, 2013). For example, R&D projects are one of the main channels of HEIs and industry. In these cooperative project there are other types of interactions, including human resources mobility, networking, information diffusion (e.g. through journals, reports and conferences), training and consultancy, property rights, incubators and spin-offs.
According to Kurth et al. (2017), R&D can stimulate the development of knowledge and innovative technology, lower costs and other barriers to large-scale. Other authors (e.g. Franco and Pinho, 2019; van Rijnsoever and Hessels, 2021; Figueiredo and Franco, 2022) indicated various reasons for cooperation R&D projects. For example, cooperative scientific research can be a way to gain access to additional resources, such as a place to conduct research, equipment or data that can help to achieve benefits (van Rijnsoever and Hessels, 2021). In addition, for many researchers, the expected publication of project-related findings in scientific journals is the most motivating factor in their choice to interorganisational cooperation Moreover, researchers often prefer to collaborate with partners other than industry. Researchers cooperation with other universities depends on their personal motivations and objectives, such as the opportunity to contribute to sustainability or to satisfy their curiosity (D’Este et al., 2018).
Blind et al. (2018) reported that publication is a basic activity for researchers and is required in their work, but the extent to which researchers publish is not stimulated. In addition, according to van Rijnsoever and Hessels (2021), researchers prefer to work with nonprofit partners versus those seeking profit.
2.3 Benefits to researchers of engaging in cooperative research and development projects
Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa (2015) carried out a systematic review of the literature on cooperation between universities and industry and summarised the benefits of cooperation into three categories:
Economic benefits (e.g. research as a source of revenue, financial benefits for researchers, creation of business opportunities and contribution to local economic development);
Institutional benefits (e.g. exposure of students and faculty to practical problems, acquisition of or access to up-to-date equipment, building credibility and trust for the academic researcher and the publication of scholarly articles); and
Social benefits, such as providing services to the community or enhancing the university’s reputation.
Various studies have also explored the determinants of R&D cooperation (e.g. Belderbos et al., 2004). An interesting discovery was that the objectives in R&D partnerships, are different according to the type of R&D and the partners in this type of cooperation.
According to van Rijnsoever and Hessels (2021), the benefits researchers expect from R&D projects are the scientific results, the financing for the research, career benefits and personal financial rewards. Moreover, interorganisational research cooperation can help participants share investment costs, reduce risks, seek knowledge resources and gain access to complementary resources, facilitate information and knowledge flows between partners and stimulate the participants’ innovative performance. In a study of research project cooperation, Franco and Pinho (2019) concluded that knowledge-sharing and financial incentives are factors that facilitate successful cooperation between organisations. Indeed, financial incentives can have a positive influence on scientific productivity for both researchers and research centres. Nevertheless, that effect may not be immediate because some research can take several years to conclude (Daraio and Moed, 2011).
Interorganisational knowledge sharing is a benefit mentioned in the study by Figueiredo and Franco (2022) and also addressed by Coughlan et al. (2021) and Santos (2021). For Figueiredo and Franco (2022), a significant aspect of cooperation is its facilitation of multidisciplinary knowledge production. Aside from knowledge transfer, the authors mentioned some benefits, such as the training network and recognition of the quality of students in the project. In addition, financial incentives are a benefit addressed in the work of van Rijnsoever and Hessels (2021). According to these authors, scientific cooperation can serve as a means to gain access to additional resources.
Cooperation between government bodies, academia and industry also demonstrate that organisations can work together to implement effective solutions in times of crisis, facilitate rapid and effective responses, maximise resources and coordinate efforts in an efficient manner. In addition, free and open communication of research results is crucial for the objectives of knowledge production and dissemination in R&D projects. On the other hand, the protection of information in cooperative relationships is essential for the financial objectives of institutions (Hemmert et al., 2014).
In sum, benefits to cooperating in R&D projects can be categorised to direct incidence when the benefit focuses clearly and immediately on the project, or indirect incidence when the opposite occurs. In the second case, the benefits do not take a clear action and repercussion in the project itself but act like a mean to a bigger purpose that transcends the project itself (Andrade et al., 2016).
2.4 Barriers to cooperating in research and development projects
Although government funding is crucial for innovation, R&D activities and knowledge-sharing between organisations, it also raises obstacles to cooperative research (Wang et al., 2019). As R&D projects conducted with government funding are often constrained by the particular requirements of governmental organisations and more complex objectives than private commercial developments, they may create more obstacles to successful cooperation.
Some challenges associated with research cooperation projects include potential strategic misalignment between partners. These conflicts can influence the quality and continuity of activities in the participating organisations. In addition, cultural and operational differences between partners can also pose significant barriers to effective cooperation. Coordinating policies and practices between different entities, managing divergent expectations and maintaining effective communication can also be barriers to effective cooperation.
Schulz and Blecken (2010) pointed out that cultural differences between partners, mutual mistrust, a lack of transparency of the potential benefits of the project, and insufficient safeguarding capacities can also present obstacles to interorganisational cooperation. In the study by Figueiredo and Franco (2022), technology failings related to the platform that students used for a business simulation project created difficulty in terms of cooperation. According to Franco and Pinho (2019) and in contradiction to other literature (e.g. Schulz and Blecken, 2010), different cultural factors can influence cooperation relations. At their best, R&D collaborations are based on interactive relationships and trust and commitment between partners aiming to create mutual value over time, which allows for diffusion of creativity, ideas and skills and promotes a bilateral exchange of knowledge (Plewa and Quester, 2007).
Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa (2015) categorised obstacles to effective cooperation into four groups. Firstly, divergent mission or purpose can negatively affect cooperative projects. Secondly, different research questions can reduce the quantity and quality of the research. Thirdly, conflicts between researchers, adverse results and biased reports by company-sponsored researchers in favour of positive experimental results relating to the company’s products can present obstacles to effective R&D. Finally, R&D can be hindered by publishing research results to obtain short-term revenue and academic recognition or by withholding results until they are patented, which leads to the risk of related technology becoming obsolete.
Many cooperative R&D projects fail to deliver results. Thus, it is necessary not only to implement project management practices (Chin et al., 2011; Brocke and Lippe, 2015; Huang and Chen, 2017) but also to demonstrate the value of these practices to the key stakeholders (Fernandes et al., 2017). Successful R&D project cooperation, therefore, depends on choosing the right research partners with specific competencies or resources to help ensure the successful of the research (Franco and Pinho, 2019).
3. Methodology
3.1 Type of study and case selection
In this study, the qualitative research method was adopted. According to Gonçalves et al. (2021), qualitative research is appropriate when there is a need to deepen knowledge beyond statistics, when a problem or issue needs to be explored or when there is a need for complex, detailed understanding of an issue. For Resende (2016), a qualitative study emphasises interpretation, the importance of holistic study, a focus on individuals’ subjective experiences and examining how people perceive, create and interpret the world.
In recent years, qualitative research has increased exponentially (Resende, 2016). This type of research is appropriate in various fields, including management and business (e.g. Franco and Pinho, 2019; Figueiredo and Franco, 2022). Within the qualitative research approach, Yin (2015) consider the case study an appropriate methodology and Gonçalves et al. (2021) asserted that the case study allows for the exploration of complex contexts using a variety of data sources. Therefore, the case study is a valuable method in scientific research that ensures the inclusion of various aspects of observable phenomena.
For this study, a single case was chosen: R&D project called “GreenHealth: Digital Strategies”, which was based on leveraging biological assets to improve well-being and promote green health. The term “green health” refers to maintaining health sustained by the principles of ecological health and sustainability (Sendall et al., 2013). The GreenHealth project was focused on digital and biological technologies and their interaction with human health, environmental sustainability and the development of economic assets. Its goal was to facilitate the creation and implementation of a long-term strategy centred on the individual and focused on the eco-sustainability of the north region of Portugal.
This government-funded R&D project was chosen for the case study due to its contribution to strengthening regional capacities for scientific research and technological development and innovation as well as its reflection of the cooperative process between different institutions. The GreenHealth project was also chosen for this study due to the success of the partnership between its various research partners and the project’s contribution to innovation activities, the advancement of scientific knowledge and the fact that the project was carried out by a public entity with government funding. In addition, the project demonstrated significant success. This project had reached its halfway point on one year and six months. It presented the following indicators: 50% of the activities had been achieved and excellent result indicators too. In addition, 114 scientific publications had already resulted from the project. However, no patents had yet been issued based on the research, while the project’s stated goal was two patents.
The project was financed by North 2020, with an investment of €1,470,607,54. The leading co-promoter of this project was an HEI (IPB), and it involved a consortium of all of the polytechnic institutes in the north region of Portugal (IPB, IPCA, IPP and IPVC) as well as a local health unit, as presented in Table 1. GreenHealth was scheduled to last for 36 months, between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2023. It was governed by three lines of research (LRs), each with distinct aims, as follows.
Consortium of the GreenHealth project
| Partners | Location | % of finance | Type of organisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPB | Bragança and Mirandela | 60 | Polytechnic institute |
| IPCA | Barcelos | 6,4 | Polytechnic institute |
| IPP | Vila do conde | 8 | Polytechnic institute |
| IPVC | Viana do Castelo | 5,6 | Polytechnic institute |
| North-East local health unit, E.P.E. (ULSNE) | Bragança | 20 | Public entity businesses |
LR 1—The researchers aimed to explore digital technology to develop innovative techniques for the area of mental health. In particular, emerging digital technology, such as digital games, the Internet of things, virtual/augmented reality, machine learning, advanced data analysis and collaborative robotics were to be used to develop innovative solutions to support recovery.
LR 2—The researchers explored sustainable production strategies based on biology with the main objectives being to 1) promote innovative agricultural practices to improve the properties of agri-food products by optimising their nutritional quality, 2) develop natural ingredients, specifically bio-active agents, colouring and preservatives obtained from natural sources native to the region to provide products with bio-active properties, 3) create functional, nutraceutical and cosmeceutical foods to prevent and/or treat health problems and 4) develop functional coverings based on natural products and complemented by natural or sustainable polymeric solutions to meet personal/hospital sanitary needs.
LR 3—The GreenHealth project aimed to develop strategies for active life, quality and well-being to create the best conditions for the sustainable development of competitive products, as well as activities related to active life by focusing on the individual’s well-being and quality of life.
The project participants were easily accessible, and these main partners were responsible for decision-making in the network. Thus, a purposive sampling technique was used to select the institutions and participants for the study. This technique was most appropriate because it allows researchers to select participants with different backgrounds or characteristics (i.e. heterogeneous purposive sampling) that can provide rich information (Etikan et al., 2016).
When multiple organisations agree to cooperate in R&D, a temporary organisation is established that is known as a consortium. The GreenHealth consortium’s contract was formalised on 10 June 2020; the contract officially established the consortium, defined its structure, listed the members’ obligations and rights, established joint responsibility for carrying out the project and determined the rules of confidentiality, dissemination and ownership of the results.
According to the project’s implementation, its partners and stakeholders were involved at all stages of the project. This level of involvement is relevant not only to the conception and implementation of strategies and decision-making but also in developing planning tools and defining the model that the network/consortium developed to assess and monitor active life strategies. Each partner brought to the project between one and six participants directly involved in the different activities, as shown in Figure 1.
3.2 Data collection and analysis
Given the qualitative nature of this study, data on cooperation in the GreenHealth project were triangulated. According to Jentoft and Olsen (2019), the triangulation of sources of information is an approach in which the researcher uses various methods and different data sources to strengthen the credibility of the study. This study used semi-structured interviews and collected additional information in the form of some documentary analysis, such as consultation of the project’s application form, consortium contract, budget approved, minutes of all the meetings and the project’s shared file; iii) the project’s website (https://greenhealth.estig.ipb.pt/pubs/) and respective social media presences (Facebook: www.facebook.com/Greenhealth-107981007799716;Linkdin: www.linkedin.com/in/greenhealth-project/; Twitter: https://twitter.com/greenhealth_).
To reach the researchers involved in GreenHealth, the project’s management team was asked for the researchers’ email addresses. An email was sent asking them to collaborate in this case study, accompanied by a short introduction explaining the context and aim of the study. The requests to collaborate were sent at the end of April 2022. A convenience (non-probabilistic) sampling method used; the GreenHealth coordinator indicated the researchers who would be most likely to collaborate in the interviews. The interviews were held according to the researchers’ availability at IPB in May 2022. In the case of the IPB researchers, the interviews were held face-to-face. Interviews with the researchers from the other institutes (IPCA and IPP) were held through the digital platform Colibri Zoom. All of the interviews were recorded with the interviewees’ permission.
The semi-structured interviews were facilitated by a script of open-ended questions ( Appendix) that was developed for this case study. According to Gonçalves et al. (2021), semi-structured interviews allow for elaboration of answers and exploration of a question in greater detail. In addition, the interviewer can change the order of the questions asked or introduce new questions.
A total of ten interviews were held. Six consortium members from IPB, including the project coordinator, the coordinators of the LR, the management team coordinator and one researcher (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 and I6) participated in interviews. Two researchers from IPP (I7 and I8) were interviewed, and two researchers from IPCA (I9 and I10) also consented to be interviewed. Unfortunately, no researcher from IPVC answered our appeal to collaborate, nor did the only researcher/doctor at ULSNE.
Additional data that were collected included direct observation of the research team’s work by attending the biannual meeting of the project’s management council on 21 April 2021 and participating in the quarterly scientific/technical meeting held by the members of LR3 on 28 March 2022. Direct observation provides a focused understanding of a case study by allowing the observer to get closer to the subjects’ perspectives to understand the meanings that the participants derive from their reality and own actions.
After each interview was completed, it was transcribed to a Microsoft Word document. Each interview lasted an average of 19 min. This was followed by content analysis of all of the information gathered. According to Renz et al. (2018), content analysis is an important element of the qualitative research methodology. Content analysis aims to discover the meaning underlying the report through quantifying the significance of spoken or written language. In this way, an extensive corpus was formed from the interview discourses and subsequent transcriptions into text. The purpose of the analysis was to identify the common elements that emerged from the data collected. On the one hand, the analysis focused on identifying the themes present in the transcripts to discover common elements in the researchers’ reflections. On the other hand, it sought to interpret the interviewees’ perspectives.
4. Results
This section presents and analyses the results obtained. It begins with a brief characterisation of the interviewees using the questions asked in the interviews and from consulting the researchers’ profiles on the Publons website and Scopus database. This is followed by a presentation of the empirical evidence.
4.1 Characteristics of the interviewees
The interviewees’ characteristics are summarised in Table 2. This table shows that of the ten interviews held, most of the interviewees belonged to IPB (six), followed by IPP (two) and IPCA (two).
Characterisation of the interviewees
| Interviewee (I) | Institution | R&D unit | Gender | Age | Academic degree | Professional category | Function in the project | Publonsb | Scopusc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levela | Date of completion | Scientific area | h-index | No. of Publications | No. of Citations | h-index | No. of Publications | No. of Citations | |||||||
| I1 | IPB | CeDRI | Male | 50 | 8 | 2003 | Electronic engineering | Lecturer coordinator | Coordinator of LR1 | 3 | 28 | 34 | 5 | 59 | 81 |
| I2 | IPB | CeDRI | Male | 54 | 8 | 2004 | Electro-technical engineering and computers | Lecturer coordinator | Researcher of LR1 | 11 | 119 | 350 | 11 | 71 | 398 |
| I3 | IPB | n.a. | Male | 44 | 8 | 2002 | Management | Manager of science and technology | Management team coordinator | 15 | 9 | 392 | 10 | 16 | 434 |
| I4 | IPB | CeDRI | Male | 53 | 8 | 2004 | Electro-technical engineering and computers | Lecturer principal coordinator | Project manager | 26 | 230 | 3 602 | 31 | 288 | 5 382 |
| I5 | IPB | UNIAG | Female | 53 | 8 | 2005 | Economics and management | Lecturer coordinator | Coordenator of LR3 | 10 | 113 | 283 | 10 | 74 | 300 |
| I6 | IPB | CIMO | Female | 44 | 8 | 2008 | Analytical chemistry, bromatology and nutrition | Auxiliary researcher | Coordinator of LR2 | 63 | 568 | 16 498 | 66 | 588 | 18 248 |
| I7 | IPP | UNIAG | Female | 58 | 8 | 2007 | Applied mathematics | Associate lecturer | Researcher of LR3 | – | 115 | 125 | 5 | 88 | 119 |
| I8 | IPP | UNIAG | Male | 56 | 8 | 2000 | Applied mathematics | Lecturer coordinator | Researcher of LR3 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 6 | 60 | 127 |
| I9 | IPCA | n.a. | Female | 43 | 8 | 2016 | Theory and history of education | Associate lecturer | Researcher of LRI3 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| I10 | IPCA | UNIAG | Female | 44 | 8 | 2014 | Economics | Associate lecturer | Researcher of LR3 | 3 | 41 | 14 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
Notes:
aLevel – Level of Qualification; bPublons – Information taken from https://publons.com/about/home/; cScopus – Information taken from www.scopus.com/home.uri; Level of Qualification 8 – PhD; n.a. = not applicable; I = interviewee
Researchers’ Motivations for Participating in R&D Projects.
According to Szücs (2018), public subsidies for R&D have increased steadily in recent decades. This development occurred together with growing evidence that research leads to social benefits. Interviewee I3 specifically mentioned:
One of the reasons for belonging to R&D projects is to create bonuses for society, namely the creation of new products, the creation of new services and the creation of new processes. These types of bonuses will serve to fill specific needs in the population. R&D initiatives are fundamental for society’s development, namely economic, technological, environmental and social contexts.
According to Beck et al. (2016), government support of R&D projects is a means to stimulate innovation. Interviewees I2 and I5 understood the creation of innovation as a reason to be part of R&D projects:
Research is important for innovation as it leads to the creation of new products. That innovation is not only in products, it can also be in processes or technology (I5).
Often, R&D projects allow the development of prototypes. In this case, you need technological competences that do not exist in the institution and you have to find in other institutions for their development (I2).
This empirical evidence is in accord with Caloffi et al. (2018), who asserted that government subsidies can stimulate corporate R&D expenditures and innovation initiatives.
Another factor mentioned by the interviewees was motivational involving real-life issues. According to interviewee I4:
This project lets us work with real problems and not with conceptual solutions in an abstract way. We end up managing to contribute to society.
Many of the interviewees also mentioned the personal motivation involved in participating in joint research, such as their increased motivation to perform investigations to progress in their careers. Interviewee I8 described his personal motivation as follows:
My motivation has to do with the fact of being aware that research is only possible in cooperation, jointly. Although some researchers carry out work in isolation, in my case this is not possible. I would get tired if I was doing research in isolation, for me it isn’t motivating. In my case, it’s important to be part of a work team, where I can exchange ideas/knowledge regularly. Firstly, jointly, research work advances more quickly. Secondly, I don’t get demotivated.
Similarly, interviewee I9 said:
The motivation for participating in R&D projects is professional development, creating bonds with other researchers and with other initiatives. Nowadays, in terms of publications, we have to start working in a network and these projects are very appealing in that respect.
About the importance of cooperation, interviewee I1 said that:
Cooperation and collaboration function well when research matters require cumulative knowledge and involve work on previous advancements.
The cooperation and communication are essential within the research team. In the minutes of the third-quarter technical-scientific meeting of the three LRs held on 2 July 2021, the researcher in charge of LR1 mentioned that on 30 June, at 2:00 p.m., LR1 of the GreenHealth project had been presented at Science Meeting 2021. The researcher mentioned that the panel evaluation had praised the project, and researchers in charge of other projects were interested in the GreenHealth project. Emails were also exchanged with members of the this project for future joint collaboration.
4.2 Choice of partners for the project
To fulfil their personal objectives and at the same time acquire sufficient resources to finance their activities, researchers need to make strategic choices about what research projects to develop and with whom. According to interviewee I4, in the case of the GreenHealth project, the choice of institutes to form the consortium was simple because the invitation to present applications was limited to the North region. Therefore, according to the interviewee:
The consortium had to be formed of the polytechnic institutes in the North: IPP, IPCA, IPVC and IPB. At the time we wanted to develop the partnership with the hospital (ULSNE) and so we decided to invite ULSNE to participate in the consortium.
About the partners’ selection in GreenHealth project, interviewee I4 mentioned that researchers were chosen according to the competencies that were necessary for the project. I5 also mentioned the existence of prior cooperation among the researchers included in LR3:
There was already close collaboration between the researchers currently participating in LR3 of the project and IPB, as they belong to the same research unit. ULSNE was included because one of the project’s aims is to work on health and well-being.
This opinion was shared by I6, the coordinator of LR2, who said that some researchers had already interacted in the past. Thus, the research partners selection as seen as one of the most influential factors for R&D projects.
4.3 Benefits to researchers of participating in the GreenHealth project
Concerning the benefits experienced from cooperating in this project, the interviewees mentioned various factors, the most cited being knowledge sharing, which included the multidisciplinary nature of the team, the creation of scientific articles, joint orientation and patents. They also described the financial incentives that lead to human, physical, financial and organisational resources. These two benefits will now be dealt with separately.
4.3.1 Knowledge.
According to Coughlan et al. (2021), in the collaborative context of contemporary research, knowledge production involves establishing collaborative relationships within research projects. In the same vein, Santos (2021) claimed that knowledge sharing is fundamental to any R&D initiative. Its management involves both tacit and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be easily documented and explained, whereas tacit knowledge is more difficult to transfer. On this issue, the interviewees were unanimous regarding the importance of the production, spread and application of knowledge and considered it fundamental for society:
One of the benefits of cooperation is the production and knowledge sharing, competences, experiences, good practices and joint development of research. Collaboration with a multidisciplinary team allows the development of innovative solutions that attract finance (I4).
Similarly, I5 said:
Sharing knowledge among researchers from different scientific areas allows my professional and personal development since it lets me find out about other perspectives, work methodologies and areas of knowledge.
Interviewee I2 explained to what extent knowledge sharing helped in carrying out activity 5, in which the aim was to develop a system to assess and monitor schizophrenia through speech:
Cooperation with ULSNE has the benefit of collaborating with a medical body that provides us with medical knowledge about the project being worked, namely medical sensitivity to certain illnesses, sensitivity in relation to patients’ problems, understanding how to handle patients. In the specific case of the project, patients with schizophrenia who have a special particularity regarding human contact. Besides, this cooperation gives us access to these patients, which makes data collection much easier.
About the multidisciplinary team of the GreenHealth project, interviewee I1 said:
The fact of working with a multidisciplinary team benefits from the characteristics and specialisation of each researcher. One person alone can’t achieve all the solutions. Often, a team gets lost in detailed work and in certain types of challenges, some of which can be easily solved by someone outside that area of research. Therefore, working with other organisations implies more people, implies more resources, which leads to greater potential success.
Also, according to the same interviewee:
Working with a multidisciplinary team has the benefit of stimulating brainstorming, where each person can make suggestions, solutions and comments and discuss better when the perception of something is a little different.
This interviewee also gave an example of the importance of multidisciplinarity in research:
If we have 200 mechanical engineers working on a specific challenge in mechanical engineering, adding the 201st engineer might not help much. However, hiring a chemist or a biologist can give solutions a new direction (I1).
These statements agree with the literature, which says that interorganisational cooperation allows work groups to learn from each other’s experiences and avoid duplicated efforts. According to Rajalo and Vadi (2017), for most researchers, the opportunity to publish their findings resulting from a project in scientific journals is a decisive factor in their choice to engage in collaborative research. Here, the interviewees demonstrated an effort to exploit emerging knowledge, including joint scientific publications. In this context, I6 said:
Only through the existing cooperation in the project is it possible to obtain the results achieved already of 114 scientific articles published. This type of project allows publications in partnership (I6).
The same interviewee also referred to joint supervision of a PhD student and expressed her satisfaction with this throughout the interview:
Carrying out joint supervision with IPP, in my specialisation–mushrooms. The existing cooperation is also essential to get to know and interact with students from other institutions. This also spreads the project in the academic world and gets the IPB research units known (I6).
Interviewee 6 also mentioned that a patent related to the research being carried out in LR2 had already been submitted in national context.
4.3.2 Financial incentives.
Cooperative scientific research can be a means to gain access to several types of resources (van Rijnsoever and Hessels, 2021). Resources were one of the factors mentioned by the interviewees, particularly interviewee I6:
Obtaining finance for the work to be done, namely human resources, financial resources, physical resources and organisational resources. To carry out the work it’s necessary to buy various reagents and solvents (consumables).
The matter of financial resources was also raised by interviewee I7:
Without financing project. it’s very difficult to be able to participate in international scientific conferences and spread the results of our work (I7).
According to interviewee I1, these resources are linked to the success of a project:
Collaboration with other organisations implies more resources, more people, greater potential success. Without finance it wouldn’t be possible to encourage the share of knowledge between institutions or its dissemination.
These observations from the interviewees demonstrate that universities can collaborate to save costs, benefit financially from research results, enhance their technological capacity and economic competitiveness, develop their human capital and obtain national incentives for developing such cooperative relations.
4.4 Barriers to cooperation experienced by the GreenHealth project partners
The interviewees mentioned several potential barriers to cooperation that arose during their participation in the GreenHealth project, the most cited being management, communication, organisational culture, the COVID-19 pandemic and distance. Each of these obstacles is described in more detail below.
4.4.1 Management.
According to Santos (2021), the financing of R&D projects requires estimates; consequently, managers tend to concentrate on planning and control and neglect issues caused by human nature. The same author asserted that R&D projects (e.g. GreenHealth) require an exceptional leadership, qualified staff, responsible management, as well as operational and organisational simplicity.
In terms of the human resources management involved in the GreenHealth project, interviewee I4 observed the following:
Each person and each work group has a different pace. As this is a very big project, with interlinked activities, there is some difficulty in articulating activities. In line 1 of the project, activity 4, virtual environments for recuperation of mental health, depends on finishing activities 2, 3 and 5. So it’s only possible to begin this activity when the others are completed. Activity 3 was delayed, due to the pandemic situation in 2020 and 2021, which prevented beginning activity 4.
Interviewee I8 mentioned the personal characteristics of some researchers as hindering cooperation:
The personal profile of each researcher, joint work requires a certain pace, if researchers are not in harmony, there will be problems. There’s also the attitude to research work, as when you work in a group, there can be a tendency to go ahead with less effort, assuming that someone else will make up for the laziness. The personal aspect is important, and sometimes it’s also an obstacle.
Indeed, interorganisational cooperation was something raised by the project coordinator. The minutes of the quarterly technical-scientific meeting of 11 January 2021 indicated that “regarding relations with other partners, it was mentioned that these were progressing as forecast”, i.e. that there were problems between team members, as expected.
I6 referred to the difficulty in hiring GreenHealth research grant-holders (RGs):
The difficulties in hiring a PhD grant-holder in the area of biomedical and laboratorial science, medicinal biotechnology, pharmacy or biochemistry, as foreseen in the project, led to a delay in carrying out some activities in line 2. Therefore, it was necessary to ask the project management to re-programme for a master student.
Interviewee I4 mentioned that:
There were some difficulties regarding the space necessary for the grant-holders hired, with it being necessary to ask the administration of ESTiG-IPB for more space. None of the partners in the project had the necessary space available.
Also related to the RGs, interviewee I7 indicated the difficulty of organising the RGs’ activities when the scientific supervisors were from different institutions:
In the case of students with joint scientific supervision, there is a need to meet and discuss the lines of action to be carried out by the grant-holder, the work methodologies and performance of the RG.
The same interviewee indicated the difficulty of not being able to devote to the project:
One difficulty in my research work is not being able to devote more time to the project, not being a full-time researcher. In my opinion, doing ‘a bit’ of work isn’t the same as devoting seven hours a day. This situation hinders cooperation in the project as sometimes it’s not possible to reconcile timetables with other researchers, which makes it impossible to participate in all the meetings (I7).
Another aspect related to the project management and mentioned by the interviewees was the project’s financial execution. According to I4:
The equipment is something that should be acquired at the beginning of the project as its financing depends on the rate of amortisation of the goods. Some partners don’t demonstrate the necessary agility in buying equipment, for example, ULSNE has not yet acquired all the equipment foreseen for the project.
The situation mentioned by I4 is described in the minutes of the technical-scientific meeting of the three LRs held on 2 July 2021, which stated that “ULS has not yet informed about the state of the situation of building work and acquisition of equipment”.
Another difficulty mentioned by the interviewees was the response to the management and coordination team. According to I4:
Some partners do not answer requests for documentation or do not respond appropriately.
The minutes of the management council meeting of 28 October 2021 confirmed this observation by stating that “there is information from IPB, but from IPVC the information sent was not in concordance from ULS no information was received”.
4.4.2 Communication.
Research work in projects is based on communication between researchers. According to Canestrino et al. (2022), linguistic capacity affects social relationships, which in turn influences a cooperation relation and knowledge-sharing. Culture shapes people’s behaviour, including their formal and informal ways of communicating and relating to others as well as the meaning they give to concepts and procedures. These factors all influence the relationships that are created within a team. Some of the researchers involved in the GreenHealth project raised the matter of communication and culture. In particular, interviewee I2 focused on language:
There are difficulties in the type of language used. We are researchers in a given scientific area, we are specialists in a given scientific area and we master a given language. When we speak to doctors or therapists, we realise they are not au fait with the concepts used in academia. Sometimes it’s difficult to get them to understand the technical terms applied to the project.
Interviewee I8 referred to the general capacity for communication as follows:
Some people are able to communicate, some are more extrovert and others more reserved. The aspect of communication is important.
Then again, I1 raised the issue of cultural interpretation:
There has to be good communication. People have to know what they’re talking about and their interpretation has to be the same, but that interpretation depends on culture. Language interacts with culture. As coordinator of an LR, I can ask for a task to be completed by day X. In certain cultures, day X is imperative, but for other cultures day X+Y is acceptable. In the case of the GreenHealth project, we only collaborate with Portuguese institutions, culture is very similar, but we find that ULSNE often thinks differently in relation to the same concept.
4.4.3 Organisational culture.
Organisational culture and structure are related to a cooperative relation. Culture and structure play an important role in organisational performance. Interviewee I1 noted:
The organisation’s dynamics, its structure and culture can be considered a difficulty in cooperation. These elements determine the researchers’ percentage of allocation. That percentage of allocation to the project has to be reconciled with other teaching activities: classes, supervision, assessment, meetings, and that agenda depends on the school. The other organisations have similar dynamics, but different timetables. This means a great difficulty, using synchronous techniques. We can solve these difficulties using communication techniques such as email or a forum, but it takes longer.
4.4.4 The COVID-19 pandemic.
Worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an abrupt interruption to universities and R&D units’ activities. According to Ghasemi et al. (2021), the pandemic caused many delays in R&D projects. Some of the researchers interviewed for this study mentioned the pandemic as a difficulty in carrying out cooperative activities.
According to interviewee I5:
In LR3, the aim of activity 15 (training the retired, elderly population as senators of excellence and tourism memory) includes contact with old people. As contact with old people was not advisable due to the pandemic, there was reconfiguration of the processes to the virtual domain, where stories of interest for the project are being recorded, edited and placed on the project website. The same happened with activity 12 (analysis of the profile of participants in health and well-being activities) and 13 (exercise to prevent and treat metabolic pathologies).
Relatedly, interviewee I6 said:
In LR2, activity 8 (innovative agricultural practices and transformation processes) is slightly delayed due to the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. This situation made it impossible to carry out the fieldwork foreseen.
In terms of communication channel, Canestrino (2022) noted that communication management in virtual meetings is more challenging than when team members are face-to-face. According to interviewee I1:
In the period of COVID-19, using new technology helped to get over some barriers, but collaboration between researchers should be face-to-face. The best way to communicate is being close to each other. When it’s impossible for us all to be present in the same place, technology is essential, but it’s always a second option. The pandemic forced people to acquire digital skills, that is, greater willingness to accept technology.
4.4.5 Distance.
Finally, the interviewees referred the physical distance as a potential barrier to cooperation. However, in this project one obstacle it was possible to overcome was the physical distance between the different researchers (I8).
This evidence from the researchers themselves suggests that differences in the institutional environments of each HEI could frustrate cooperation between the researchers. The culture and history of each institution, their structural organisations and to procedures and routines can conflict with the institutional cultures of other HEIs involved in the cooperative research (Franco and Pinho, 2019).
5. Summary of the results and discussion
All of the key ideas derived from the empirical evidence obtained through the interviews and documentary analyses are summarised in Table 3.
Summary of the key-ideas from the interviews
| Interviewee | Institution | Motivations | Partners | Benefits | Obstacles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | IPB | Personal motivation Multi-dimensional Impact on the spread of results | Willingness to collaborate | Resources Knowledge | Management Culture Communication Organisational dynamics |
| I2 | IPB | Exchange of experiences Prototypes/Innovation Spreading results | n.a. | Complementary competences Knowledge | Communication Management Distribution of gains |
| I3 | IPB | Evolution of science and society | Measurement of the project | Developing new knowledge | Organisational culture Human resource management |
| I4 | IPB | Financing Working with real problems | Announcement of the project and cooperation already exists with some researchers Researchers’ skills Work capacity | Complementarity of competences Multidisciplinary work Knowledge | Financial execution Partners’ effort Organisational culture |
| I5 | IPB | Personal motivation Multidimensional work Innovation Absorbing different perspectives | Cooperation already existing in UNIAG | Share of knowledge Extending the research network Multidisciplinarity of knowledge | Distribution of funds by entities and researcher Financial execution Human resource management |
| I6 | IPB | Financing | Partners already known from other collaboration | Joint supervision Joint publications Technological development Patents | Difficulties with fieldwork – pandemic Hiring HR |
| I7 | IPP | Personal motivation (career development) | n.a. | Share of knowledge Financing | Fulfilling activities – covid Human resource management Management |
| I8 | IPP | Personal motivation | n.a. | Complementing competences | Distance Lack of effort Human resource management |
| I9 | IPCA | Personal motivation | n.a. | Knowledge | Human resource management |
| I10 | IPCA | Personal motivation | n.a. | Possibility of collaborating with a multi-disciplinary team | Management |
In terms of their motivations for participating in R&D projects with other institutions, the partners’ motivations identified in this study are related to their desire to participate in research that focused on the evolution of society, that stimulated innovation, that allowed them to examine real-world problems and that satisfied their own personal motivations. These conclusions are in line with Beck et al. (2016), D’Este et al. (2018) and Szücs (2018). For Szücs (2018), research also leads to social practices. D’Este et al. (2018) pointed out that researchers’ motivations to cooperate with other institutions depend on their social activities.
The choice of research partners, in the case of the GreenHealth project, was predetermined by the call for applications for this type of project because the consortium had to be made up of the polytechnic institutes of a specific region. As for the benefits, the interviewees were unanimous about their interest in participating in the production, dissemination and application of knowledge and the financial incentives. These results are in line with the work of Coughlan et al. (2021), Santos (2021) and van Rijnsoever and Hessels (2021).
Finally, with regard to the barriers to cooperation in R&D projects, the interviewees encountered major challenges with regard to social relations with their partners, both in terms of communication and human resource management in the project. The interviewees considered that differences in organisational cultures were also a challenge because organisational culture shapes people’s behaviour. The topics of the COVID-19 pandemic, management and distance were also addressed. These findings were in line with the literature on cooperation (e.g. Ghasemi et al., 2021; Santos, 2021).
6. Conclusions and implications
R&D initiatives are fundamental for society’s development. Consequently, research groups and universities increasingly seek more effective ways to support and strengthen the capacity for scientific research. Indeed, many of their types of financing are based on the thinking that greater cooperation between researchers and between institutions leads to higher scientific productivity (Contandriopoulos et al., 2018). In this sense, this study is innovative in that it provides a view of the motivations, benefits and barriers that underlie and result from cooperative research undertaken as part of a government-financed R&D project in the education and health sectors. The results also show that the GreenHealth project’s partners were pre-determined by the conditions that applied to this type of project because the consortium/network had to consist of polytechnic institutes.
Concerning the benefits, this study reveal that this type of cooperative project allows a spread and application of knowledge and attracts financial incentives. Among the obstacles to cooperation, social relations in terms of communication and human resource management in the GreenHealth project, were identified. Differences between the organisational cultures were also a challenge observed.
6.1 Theoretical and practice contributions
This study also makes contributions to theory and practice. Its theoretical implications contribute to advancing the network theory, particularly cooperation between HEIs and health organisations. More specifically, it contributes by identifying the main dimensions (motivations, partners, benefits and barriers) of cooperation for innovation and knowledge transfer in education and health contexts, both between HEIs and between HEIs and health organisations, in R&D processes and in knowledge transfer. The results obtained also reveal the importance of this study in expanding the knowledge of interorganisational cooperation by identifying the dimensions that can influence the success or failure of this type of cooperation. Knowledge transfer, the right choice of partners and the existence of funding are factors that contribute to successful cooperation, whereas organisational culture, physical distance between partners, the COVID-19 pandemic and management-related challenges can be considered barriers to R&D processes.
Finally, taking these factors together, this study is innovative because it explores cooperation in government-funded R&D projects from the perspective of the network perspective. In addition, our study shows several issues associated for project execution within the educational and health sectors. Therefore, this issue demands a comprehensive examination of government-funded initiatives within HEIs and health organisations.
Concerning practical contributions, this study shows that all of the GreenHealth team members understood the importance of cooperation between institutions and referred to the importance of creating and transferring knowledge.
In the current environment/context it is almost impossible to implement R&D activities in complete isolation. This study suggests that there are still doubts about the true positive role of different types of partners in the transfer of knowledge and innovation for implementation of health practices. Therefore, HEIs and health organisations must clarify collaborative practices and recruit partners who seek similar benefits. Relevant information must also be shared regularly with the community members or leaders to provide adequate education or sensitisation of the people on the projects cycle.
This study shows that in R&D projects, HEIs access new knowledge, attract highly qualified personnel/researchers, establish networks with academia and share financial risks. In contrast, academic researchers at the HEIs can achieve other benefits from such projects, including opportunities to conduct reputable research and publish their findings, explore new research areas and increase the focus on applied research. Therefore, research findings can also create an important motivation for policymakers to increase the innovative capacity in educational and health organisations.
6.2 Limitations and future research agenda
This study is not without limitations. Although a single case study can allow for the understanding of complex phenomena, such as the research project studied herein, the case study method means that the conclusions drawn cannot be generalised. It is therefore suggested that future studies should focus on multiple case studies, both nationally and internationally, that are linked to other sectors of activity to make a comparative analysis.
Although the issue of cultural differences is addressed in this study, it was not measured by any type of properly validated scale; indeed, measurement was not the aim of this study. Thus, this limitation suggests that future quantitative research could assess the benefits or detriments of cultural differences between the various partners involved in cooperative R&D. Finally, despite these limitations, we consider that our results and conclusions present some contributions by deepening the understanding of a little-explored subject.
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from National Funds of the FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology within the project «UIDB/04007/2020».
